Julius, to the beloved brothers Danius, Flacillus, Narcissus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodore, and their associates who wrote to us from Antioch, greetings in the Lord.

I. The Eastern Bishops at Antioch Responded Contentiously

I read the letters brought by my presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, marveling that, though we wrote with love and truth’s conviction, you replied contentiously, not as fitting. Your letter betrayed the writers’ pride and arrogance, alien to Christian faith. It was fitting that our loving words receive a loving response, not contention. Is it not a sign of charity to send presbyters to console the afflicted and urge writers to come, so matters could be swiftly settled and rightly ordered, sparing our brothers vexation and you from accusations?

I know not why you chose to act so, leading us to suspect that your words of honor were spoken with dissimulation and mockery. The presbyters sent, who should have returned joyfully, came back sorrowful, witnessing what transpired there. After reading your letter and reflecting, I withheld it, hoping some of you would come, rendering a response unnecessary to avoid distressing many here. Since none arrived, I had to produce it, and all were astonished, hardly believing you wrote such words, more contentious than charitable. If the letter’s author wrote to display eloquence, that is another’s custom, not ours. In ecclesiastical matters, we seek not eloquent display but apostolic canons, ensuring no little one in the Church is scandalized. It is better, per ecclesiastical judgment, to be cast into the sea with a millstone than to scandalize one of these little ones (Whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, Matthew 18:6).

II. Their Letter Lacks Just Cause for Complaint

What was done to warrant complaint? What in my letter provoked your anger? That we urged you to attend a synod? This should have been received with joy. Those confident in their actions or judgments, as you claim, do not resent others examining them but trust their just judgments remain valid. The bishops at the great Nicene synod, not without God’s counsel, allowed prior synods’ acts to be reviewed, so judges, mindful of future judgment, weigh matters cautiously, and the judged believe they are judged by equity, not prior judges’ enmity. If you reject this ancient Nicene custom, your refusal is unseemly. A custom established in the Church and confirmed by synods must not be abrogated by a few.

The Eusebians you sent—Macarius the presbyter, Martyrius, and Hesychius the deacons—arrived here unable to counter Athanasius’s presbyters, being refuted in all things. They requested a synod, with letters sent to Athanasius in Alexandria and the Eusebians, to render just judgment before all, promising to prove their charges against him. Martyrius and Hesychius were publicly convicted by us, and Athanasius’s presbyters, with confidence, refuted them wholly, leading them to demand a synod. If I had called a synod without their request, urging them to endure travel’s burden for our aggrieved brothers, this would have been just and God-pleasing. Since they, deemed trustworthy by you, asked for it, the summoned should not resent but eagerly attend. Their indignation and refusal to come are thus unjust and suspect.

III. They Claim Synod Judgments Are Dishonored, but They Violated Nicaea’s Synod by Reinstating Arians

You claim it dishonors a synod to review its judgments, deeming it contemptuous to a judge. Consider, beloved, who dishonors synods and rescinds prior judgments. To avoid burdening individuals, one recent act suffices to prove what I omit. Arians, expelled by blessed Alexander of Alexandria for impiety, were not only banished from cities but anathematized by all at the great Nicene synod. Their crime was not against man but our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. Yet those rejected by the whole world and disgraced by the universal Church are now reportedly received, which I believe you find intolerable. Who then dishonors synods? Those who nullify the 318 bishops’ votes and prefer impiety to piety? Arianism was condemned by all bishops everywhere, while Athanasius and Marcellus have many defending them. Marcellus was testified to have opposed Arians at Nicaea, and witnesses claim Athanasius was neither convicted at Tyre nor present at Mareotis, where charges were fabricated.

IV. They Violated Nicaea’s Synod in the Case of Pistus the Eusebian, While Julius Preserves It

We learned from Alexandria’s events that Carpones, expelled by Alexander for Arianism, and others similarly ejected, came here sent by Gregory. Macarius, Martyrius, and Hesychius also urged us to write to Pistus in Alexandria while Athanasius was bishop there. Athanasius’s presbyters declared Pistus an Arian, expelled by Alexander and Nicaea, ordained by Secundus, an Arian ejected by the great synod. Neither Martyrius nor his associates denied this. Who then deserves blame? We, who refused to write to the Arian Pistus, or those urging us to dishonor Nicaea and write to the impious as if pious? Macarius, hearing Athanasius’s presbyters, fled at night, likely ashamed of being refuted about Pistus, as Secundus’s ordination could not hold in the Catholic Church.

V. Their Zeal for Synod Decrees Is Feigned

You claim, citing Novatian and Paul of Samosata, that synod decrees must hold. How much more should the 318 bishops’ decrees remain valid, not despised by a few? Arians, like those heretics, faced equal decrees. Who kindled discord? We, who act per the canon and mourn afflicted brothers, or those who contentiously violated Nicaea’s decrees, admitting Arians and allowing bishops to transfer sees? If you deem all bishops’ honor equal, not based on city size, one entrusted with a small city should remain, not despising it for another, seeking vain human glory.

VI. They Falsely Cite Time Constraints for Not Attending Rome

Beloved, you should have come to Rome, not refused, to settle the matter, as reason demands. You complained our set time for the synod was too short, but this is mere pretext. If the deadline passed those already en route, the time might justly be called short. But those unwilling to come, detaining our presbyters until January, show distrust in their cause. They would have come, trusting in justice, not time or distance.

VII. Time Constraints Are No Excuse for Causing Schism

You claim the East’s condition prevented travel. If so, you should not have caused schism, grief, and tears in the churches. Their actions reveal not time’s condition but a deliberate refusal to attend.

VIII. They Wrongly Complain Julius Wrote Only to Eusebians

I marvel that you fault me for writing only to Eusebius and his associates, not all of you. This finds subtlety, not truth, in your complaint. Having received letters against Athanasius only from Martyrius and Hesychius, I had to respond to them. Either the Eusebians should not have written without you, or you should not resent my reply to those who wrote. If letters should have gone to all, you should have written with them. We wrote to those who informed us, as was fitting. If it troubles you that I wrote alone, you should equally resent their writing to me alone. This excuse is specious but unjust.

IX. Athanasius and Marcellus Were Rightly Restored to Communion

That we rightly received our fellow bishops Athanasius and Marcellus into communion is clear, but I’ll briefly show why. The Eusebians and now you wrote against Athanasius, but many bishops from Egypt and other provinces wrote for him. Your letters contradict each other, the first refuting the second, and vice versa, undermining their credibility. If you demand trust in your letters, it’s consistent to trust those for him, especially since you write of distant events, while they, present where Athanasius and the events were, attest his virtue and claim he suffered calumny. Arsenius, alleged to have been killed by Athanasius, was found alive and his friend.

X. Mareotic Proceedings Were Invalid with Only One Party Present

Athanasius affirmed the Mareotic proceedings, conducted with only one party present, were invalid. Neither Macarius, the accused presbyter, nor Athanasius was there, as shown by their own records brought by Martyrius and Hesychius. The accuser Ischyras was present, but not Macarius or Athanasius, and Athanasius’s presbyters were denied participation. If the judgment were sincere, both accuser and accused should have been present, as at Tyre, where nothing was proven. The Mareotic acts, with only the accuser and Athanasius’s rejected judges, are suspect.

XI. Many Witnesses Refute the Mareotic Proceedings’ Falsehoods

Athanasius proved this not only by his words but by a letter from Alexander, former bishop of Thessalonica, to Dionysius, a count at the synod, revealing a conspiracy against Athanasius. Ischyras’s authentic letter, wholly in his hand, swore before God that no chalice was broken, no table overturned, and he was suborned to accuse. Mareotic presbyters confirmed Ischyras was not a Catholic presbyter and Macarius committed no such crime. Many presbyters and deacons testified to Athanasius’s innocence, asserting a fabricated conspiracy.

XII. Their Falsehoods Are Proven by Their Own Records

Athanasius proved from the Mareotic records that a catechumen claimed he was with Ischyras when Macarius allegedly intruded, while others said Ischyras lay ill by the door or in a cell. How could a sick man by the door perform liturgy? If catechumens were present, no offering occurred. Athanasius and his companions showed Ischyras was never a Catholic presbyter, nor listed among Meletius’s presbyters when Alexander, by Nicene indulgence, received them. Ischyras’s claim of burned books was refuted by his own witnesses.

XIII. Athanasius’s Innocence Is Shown by His Confidence in Rome

With such testimony and evidence, what should we have done? Ecclesiastical rule demanded we not condemn but receive Athanasius as a true bishop, as we did. He remained here a year and six months, awaiting your or others’ arrival, shaming all by his presence, confident in his cause, coming at our summons.

XIV. Gregory’s Ordination Was Illegitimate

Who acted against the canons? We, who received a man after such proofs of innocence, or those who, thirty-six stages from Antioch, ordained an outsider bishop and sent him to Alexandria with soldiers? Even when Athanasius was exiled to Gaul, this was not done. His church awaited him on his return. Why was this done now? No one should preempt a synod’s judgment or introduce such innovation. What canon or apostolic tradition allows, in a peaceful church with many bishops supporting Athanasius, sending Gregory, an unbaptized, unknown outsider, ordained in Antioch and sent to Alexandria with soldiers, not clergy? If Athanasius were guilty post-synod, ordination should have been from Alexandria’s clergy by its bishops, not violating apostolic canons.

XV. Other Mareotic Proceedings Deserve Reproach

I must note Athanasius’s claim that Macarius remained in Tyre under guard, while only the accuser went to Mareotis with biased judges, denied presbyters’ participation, and questioned the chalice and table before the prefect, pagans, and Jews. This seemed incredible until the records confirmed it. You, too, will marvel that Christ’s body and blood were questioned before a secular judge, with catechumens, pagans, and Jews present, when presbyters were barred. Such a crime should have been examined by clergy in the Church, not pagans who detest the Word.

XVI. Marcellus Is Declared Orthodox

Regarding Marcellus, after you wrote of his impiety toward Christ, he declared your claims false upon arriving here. When we asked for his faith, he responded so confidently that we found his profession orthodox, consistent with the Catholic Church and his past opposition to Arianism at Nicaea, as our presbyters there confirmed.

XVII. Julius Writes Not to Defend but to Justify Their Restoration

I write not to plead their cause but to show we justly and canonically received them. You stir vain disputes. Strive to correct uncanonical acts and enjoy the Church’s peace, lest you be blamed for schism. Your actions suggest schism, not peace.

XVIII. Many Bishops Report Arian Atrocities

Not only Athanasius and Marcellus came here complaining of injustice, but many bishops from Thrace, Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and presbyters from Alexandria and elsewhere attended our synod, reporting churches suffered violence, mirroring Alexandria’s woes. Recent Egyptian and Alexandrian presbyters testified that bishops and presbyters were barred from the synod, flogged, imprisoned, or consigned to public service, with clergy and people persecuted to force communion with Gregory’s Arians. Marcellus confirmed similar acts in Ancyra. Such atrocities, reported by some of you, I hesitate to detail, as you may know them.

XIX. Eusebians, Not Julius, Cause Discord

With churches so oppressed, who kindles discord? We, who mourn and pity afflicted brothers, or those perpetrating such acts? You claim peace in the churches, but this tends to ruin, not edification. Our God is of peace, not dissension (The God of peace, 1 Corinthians 14:33). I write, mindful of your reputation and desiring churches’ peace, to urge you to restrain those causing this through mutual hatred, a small number, as I hear.

XX. Athanasius and Marcellus Were Received Without Bias

Do not write that I favored Athanasius and Marcellus’s communion over yours, as this shows contention, not peace. I wrote above to show their just reception and end such strife. Had they been convicted with your consent, your complaint would be just. But since we joined their communion canonically, I beseech you through Christ not to rend His members or trust preconceived notions but value the Lord’s peace.

XXI. If Deemed Guilty, They Should Face Trial in Rome

If you believe charges against them can be proven, let those willing come to Rome, where they are ready to refute accusations clearly before all bishops, ending church disturbances. Enough has been done; exiling bishops suffices without prolonging discourse.

XXII. Alexandria’s Bishop Should Not Be Judged Without Julius’s Knowledge, as Judgments Not Following the Gospel Are Invalid

Beloved, church judgments are no longer per the Gospel but for exile and death. If they were guilty, judgment should have followed the canon, with all of us informed, as justice must be decreed by all. These were bishops, not common churches, but those governed by the Apostles. Why was nothing written to us about Alexandria’s church? Do you not know the custom that we must first be written to, and justice decreed from here? If suspicion fell on its bishop, it should have been reported to this church. They acted without informing us, then sought our support for unproven charges. These are not Paul’s statutes or the Fathers’ traditions but a novel form. Bear this patiently, as I write for the common good. I declare what we received from the blessed Apostle Peter, disturbed by these acts: bishops are seized, expelled, replaced, or persecuted, forcing people to accept unwanted leaders. I urge you to oppose such acts, lest we provoke laughter among pagans or God’s wrath. Each will render account at judgment. May all think according to God, so churches rejoice in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom glory to the Father forever, Amen. I wish you health in Christ, most beloved brothers.