ПОСЛАНИЕ ЮЛИЯ

Denmark, Flacilla, Narcis, Eusebius, Marinus, Macedonius, Theodora and others with them who wrote to us from Antioch, beloved brethren, Julius desires to rejoice in the Lord 21) I read the letter brought by my elders Elpidius and Philoxenus, and was amazed. We wrote with love and consciousness of the truth, and you answered with ambition and contrary to decency. The letter proves the contempt and arrogance of those who wrote, and this is alien to the faith of Christ. What was written with love demanded equal retribution, that is, an answer also written with love, and not with strife. Isn’t this a sign of love - to send elders who would show compassion for those who suffer, to invite those who wrote about their desire to come, so that everything, having quickly received a decision, could be corrected, and our brethren would not suffer, and no one would slander you? But I don’t know what disposed you to such behavior, which made us think that your sayings, with which you thought to honor us, were used feignedly and with some kind of mockery. And the sent elders, who should have returned with joy, returned, on the contrary, saddened by what they saw there. And I, having read your message, after long reflection, kept the letter with me, thinking, however, that someone would come and there would be no need for a letter, which, having become known, could offend many of the locals. When no one came, it became necessary to show it. And I confess to you, everyone was surprised and close to disbelief that this was definitely written by you, because the letter showed more curiosity than love. If the one who wrote the answer wanted to distinguish himself with art in words, then such work should be left to others; in church affairs, what is needed is not selective words, but apostolic rules and an effort not to tempt even “one of the little ones” in the Church: “unless he eats, according to the Church’s word, a millstone of the village will fall on his neck, and he will be drowned...if he tempt one of the little ones” (Matthew 18:6; Luke 17:2). If such a letter arose from the fact that some were offended by low actions towards each other (I would not like to say that everyone had this thought), then it would be more decent not to be offended at all, not to allow the sun to set on your insult, at least, you should not go so far in your insult that it would be revealed in writing. 22) For what was offensive, or in what way could you justly be offended from what we wrote? Is it because we invited you to come to the Council? But this should rather be accepted with joy. Those who are confident in what they have done and about which, as they themselves say, they have pronounced judgment, are not indignant if their judgment is subjected to the scrutiny of others, but on the contrary, they do not doubt that in no way will it turn out to be unfair, which they judged fairly. Therefore, the bishops who met at the great Council of Nicaea, not without God’s will, agreed to subject the reasoning of one Council to study at another, so that the judges, having before their eyes another future trial, would carry out the study with all caution, and those judged would be sure that they were being judged not because of the enmity of the previous judges towards them, but with justice. If you do not want such an ancient custom, mentioned and written down at the great Council, to have force in you, then such a refusal is indecent. What has once been accepted into custom by the Church and approved by the Councils, there is no reason for few to violate. But it would be unfair, it seems, to be offended by the next one. Those sent with a letter from you who adhere to Eusebius, that is, Presbyter Macarius and the deacons Martyrius and Hesychius, having arrived here, could not resist the Athanasian presbyters who came, but were ashamed and convicted of everything, which is why they then asked us to convene a Council, write to Bishop Athanasius in Alexandria, and write also to those who adhere to Eusebius, so that in the presence of everyone a word could be pronounced fair trial. Then they promised to prove everything that they denounced against Athanasius, because Martyrius and Hesychius were denounced by all of us, and the presbyters of Bishop Athanasius confidently opposed them; Martyrius and those who were with him, to tell the truth, were put to shame in everything and therefore asked to form a Council. If, even without the request of Martirieva and Isikhieva to draw up a Council, I had proposed to disturb those who wrote for the sake of our brethren, complaining that they had suffered an insult, then even in that case the invitation would have been legal and fair, because it was in accordance with the church statutes and pleasing to God. When we were asked to convene a Council by those whom you yourself, who adhere to Eusebius, recognized as worthy of trust, then you should not have been upset at being called, but rather should have gone willingly. And from this it turns out that the indignation of those who were insulted recklessly and the refusal of those who did not want to come is indecent and suspicious. Does anyone complain if what he himself does and approves of, he sees the same thing done by others? If, as you write, each council has unshakable power and dishonor is inflicted on the judge when his judgment is examined by others, then look, beloved, who dishonors the council and who violates the decisions of those who judged before. Now I will not examine everything in order, so as not to seem to attack others; and what has been done recently, and which others hear about, not without horror, is sufficient to explain everything that I am keeping silent about. 23) The Arians, who were cast out for impiety by the former Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, of blessed memory, were not only excommunicated from the Church in every city, but were anathematized by all who gathered together at the great Council of Nicea, because their offense was not unimportant and they sinned not against man, but against Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of the Living God. And yet these excommunicated from the Church by the whole universe and given over to shame throughout the Church are now, as they say, accepted into communion. Having heard about this, I think it would be fair to be indignant. So, who is dishonoring the Council? Is it not those who turned the definitions of the three hundred fathers into nothing and preferred wickedness to piety? The Arian heresy has been condemned and deposed by all the bishops everywhere, while bishops Athanasius and Marcellus have on their side many who speak and write in their favor. Marcellus testified to us about himself, because at the Council of Nicaea he opposed those who held Arianism. Athanasius also testified about himself; he was not convicted in Tire, and in Mareot, where court records were compiled against him, they say he was not present; You know, beloved, that a one-sided investigation of a matter is not valid, but it can be suspicious. However, with all this, to maintain accuracy, neither you nor those who wrote in their defense, without giving preference; We invited you, the writers, to come, so that, since many wrote in their defense, everything would be examined at the Council, and neither the innocent would be condemned, nor the guilty would be found clean. Consequently, dishonor was inflicted on the Council not by us, but by those who accepted the condemned Arians simply, without delving into the matter, against the definition of those who condemned, many of whom, having already been resolved, are with Christ (Phil. 1:23), and some are still being tested in this world to this day, indignant that others have violated their definition. 24) We learned about this from what was in Alexandria. For a certain Karpon, who was expelled by Alexander for the Arian heresy, together with some who were also expelled for this heresy, came here, sent by some Gregory. And we also received information about this from the presbyter Macarius and from the deacons Martyrius and Hesychius, because before the Athanasian presbyters arrived here, they convinced us to write to Alexandria to some Pistus, while the bishop in Alexandria was Athanasius. About this same Pistus, the presbyters of Bishop Athanasius, who came here, proved that he was an Arian, deposed by Bishop Alexander and the Council of Nicaea, and installed by some Secundus, whom the great Council deposed as an Arian, and those who came with Martyrius did not argue against this, and they did not deny that Pistus was installed by Secundus. So, look also according to this, who is rightly subject to censure: were we, who did not agree to write to the Arian Pistus, or who advised to bring dishonor to the great Council and to write to the wicked as to the pious? And the presbyter Macarius, sent by Eusebius together with Martyrius, as soon as he heard that the Athanasian presbyters were here, when we expected that he would appear to us, together with Martyrius and Hesychius, although he was sick, he left at night, and from this we had the right to guess that he withdrew, ashamed of the denunciation regarding Pistus. For it is impossible for the ordination of the Arian Secundus to have force in the Universal Church. And truly, this is a dishonor to the Council and the bishops who came together, if with such care and reverence, as if in the presence of God Himself, what was perfect was violated and rendered worthless. 25) So, if, as you write, conciliar decrees should have force following the example of what was legalized against Novatus and Paul of Samosata, then it was all the more necessary that the definition of the three hundred fathers should not be violated, and that a few should not dishonor the Ecumenical Council. For the Arians are also heretics, like those, and the definitions against them are similar to those made against those. After they dared to do this, who kindled the flame of dissent? You reproach us, writing as if we did it. Could it be that we, who sympathize with our suffering brothers and acted according to the rule in everything, have created a difference of opinion, and not those who stubbornly and contrary to the rule violated the decree of the three hundred fathers and dishonored the Council in everything? For not only are Arians accepted into the Church, but also bishops are trying to move from place to place. So, if you really think that the honor of bishops is equal and the same, and, as you write, you do not judge bishops by the size of cities, then whoever is entrusted with a small city should remain in what was entrusted to him, and not humiliate him and not move to another city not entrusted to him, neglecting what is given from God, but loving human vanity. Therefore, beloved, you should have come and not refused, so that the matter would come to an end; reason itself demands this. But perhaps the appointed deadline prevented you, for in your letter you complain that we have set a close deadline for the Council. But this, beloved, is just an excuse. For if the appointed day caught someone on the way, then this would prove the short distance of the period. If, without thinking of going on the road themselves, the elders were detained until the very month of January, then this is an excuse for not relying on themselves, because if they had relied on themselves, then, as I said, they would have set off on the road, despite the distance of the journey, not paying attention to the shortness of the time, but boldly relying on the rightness and legality of their cause. But perhaps you did not come due to the circumstances of the time, for in your letter you also made it clear that, taking into account the state of affairs in the east, we should not have invited you to go. So, if you did not come, as you say, because these are the circumstances of the time, then you should have been the first to take these circumstances into account and not become the culprits of schism, crying and crying in the churches. Now, having done so, they proved that the reason was not circumstances, but the arbitrariness of those who did not want to come. 26) I marvel at this in the letter - why you wrote that I wrote alone and to Eusebius alone, and not to all of you. In this, others will find attachment to everything rather than truth. Having received no letters against Athanasius from anywhere, except those brought by Martyrius and Hesychius, I, of necessity, answered the one who wrote against him. Therefore, it was necessary either for Eusebius not to write alone without all of you, or not to be offended by you, to whom I did not write, if I wrote to those who themselves wrote. If I needed to write to all of you, then you all should have written to me together with Eusebius. Now, considering the course of the matter, I wrote only to those who informed me about the matter and wrote letters to me. And if you were touched that I alone wrote to him, then you should also be indignant at the fact that he wrote to me alone. But even in this, beloved, there is only a plausible, and not a solid, pretext. However, it is necessary to bring to your attention that although I wrote alone, this opinion does not belong to me alone, but to all the faithful in Italy and the bishops of these countries. And I didn’t want to force everyone to write, so that what was written on behalf of many would not be difficult for you. So now the bishops gathered at the appointed time and were of exactly the opinion that I again portray to you in the letter. Therefore, beloved, although I am writing alone, nevertheless, know that this is the common opinion of all. So, it is clear from this that the pretexts invented by some of you are unfounded, unfair and suspicious. 27) And the fact that our co-bishops Athanasius and Marcellus were accepted into communion by us not out of frivolity and not against justice, although this is sufficiently explained by what has already been said, I will present to you the reason in brief words. Eusebius first wrote against Athanasius, and now you also wrote, but many bishops from Egypt and other dioceses also wrote in defense of Athanasius. And, firstly, your letters against him contradict themselves, and there is no agreement in the latter with the former; on the contrary, in many ways the former are refuted by the latter, and the latter are exposed as lies by the former. Given the same discrepancy between the letters, the contents contained in them do not deserve much credibility. Then, if you want us to believe what you wrote; then you should not deprive those who wrote in defense of Athanasius of trust, especially since you live far away, they are on the spot and know Athanasius, they write about what happened there, testifying about his life and claiming that he was slandered in everything by conspiracy. And they once said that a certain Bishop Arseny was killed by Athanasius, but we learned that he was alive and even in friendship with Athanasius. Regarding the court records made in Mareota, it was confirmed that they were compiled based on a one-sided study of the case: neither the accused presbyter Macarius nor his bishop Athanasius himself were there. And this became known to us not only from Afanasyev’s words, but from the records themselves, which Martyrius and Hesychius brought to us. Having read them, we found that the accuser Iskhir was there, but there was neither Macarius, nor Bishop Athanasius, nor even the Athanasian presbyters, who wanted to be there, but were not allowed. If the trial were carried out fairly, then, beloved, it would be necessary for not only the accuser, but also the accused to be there in person. Just as the accused Macarius and the accuser Iskhir were in Tire in person, and nothing was proven, so it was necessary for not only the accuser, but also the accused to go to Mareot, so that there either he would be personally convicted, or, if not convicted, he would prove that everything was slander. And now, since this did not happen, and the accuser went there alone, accompanied by people whom Afanasy removed from the case, then the paperwork itself seems suspicious. 28) About those who went to Mareot, he complained that they went there against his will, for he said that they sent suspicious people: Theognius, Marinus, Theodora, Ursatius, Valens and Macedonia, and he proved this not only in his own words, but also in a letter from the former Bishop of Thessaloniki Alexander; because he brought his letter, sent to the committee Dionysius, who was at the Council, in which Alexander reveals that an obvious conspiracy had been drawn up against Athanasius, Athanasius also brought the original handwritten writing of the accuser Iskhir himself, in which, calling the Almighty God as a witness, he says that neither the cup was broken, nor the meal overturned, but he himself invented this accusation at the instigation of some. And the Mareotian presbyters, having arrived, began to assert that Ischir was not a presbyter of the Universal Church, and Macarius was not guilty of such an act as Ischir accused him of. The presbyters and deacons who came here also a lot, and on the contrary, a lot, presented evidence in favor of Bishop Athanasius, claiming that what was being said against him was not true and that he was slandered by conspiracy, and all the bishops of Egypt and Libya confirmed by letters that his installation was legal and in accordance with church rules, and what you said against him was all false, because there was no murder, no one was killed by him, and the cup It wasn’t broken, but it’s all a lie. And from the court records themselves, which were compiled in Mareota during a one-sided examination of the case, Bishop Athanasius showed that one catechumen was interrogated and said that he was with Ischir inside when, as they say, Macarius, the presbyter of Athanasius, appeared at the place, and others, having been interrogated, said that Ischir, according to one, was in a small cell, and according to another, a sick man was lying outside the door, when, as they say Macarius came there. From this said by Athanasius, we rightly draw the conclusion: how is it possible that Iskhir, who was lying sick outside the door, at the same time stood and performed a sacred act and offering? Or how is it possible that a holy offering was offered there, with catechumens inside? For if the catechumens were inside, then it means that the time for the offering had not yet come. This, as has been said, was spoken and proved from court records by Bishop Athanasius, and those with him confirmed that Iskhir was never at all a presbyter in the Universal Church and that they never accepted him in the Church as a presbyter. For they argued that when Alexander, by the condescension of the great Council, accepted elders from the Meletian schism, Ischyrus was not named by Meletius among those appointed by him. And this serves as very strong evidence that Iskhir was not appointed by Meletius, for if he had been appointed presbyter, then he, without a doubt, would have been included among the others. In addition, Athanasius proved from court records that Iskhir lied in other ways. For he complained that the books were burned when, as they say, Macarius appeared here, but was caught in a lie by those whom he himself presented as witnesses. 29) So, after all that has been said, when there were so many witnesses speaking in favor of Athanasius, and so many justifications were presented by himself, what should we do? Isn’t that what church rule requires, that is, not to condemn Athanasius, but rather to accept him and recognize him as a bishop, as he was recognized? Moreover, he stayed here for a year and six months, waiting for you to arrive or for anyone to come, and with his presence he won everyone over to his side, because he would not have appeared if he had not been confident in the rightness of his cause, since he did not come on his own, but having been summoned by us and having received letters from us, as we had written to you. And yet, after all this, you blame us for acting against the rules. Therefore, look who acted against the rules: we, who after so much evidence accepted Athanasius, or those who, being thirty-six marches away in Antioch, named a stranger a bishop and sent him to Alexandria with military force? This did not happen when Athanasius was sent to Gaul, for even then another would have been put in his place if Athanasius had truly been convicted. But it is known that, upon returning, he found the Church unoccupied and waiting for him. 30) And now, I don’t know how what happened happened. Firstly, if we tell the truth, then when we wrote that there should be a Council, it was not appropriate for anyone to precede the Council judgment. Then, such an innovation, contrary to the Church, should not have been allowed. For where is such a church rule or where is there a similar Apostolic tradition - when the Church was in the world, and such a number of bishops were in agreement with the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius, to send there Gregory, who is not from this city, was not baptized there and is unknown to many, for whom neither the presbyters, nor the bishops, nor the people asked, and who was installed in Antioch, but was sent to Alexandria not with the presbyters, not with the deacons Alexandrians, not with the bishops of Egypt, but with the soldiers? For this is what those who came here said and complained about. If even after the Council Athanasius had turned out to be guilty, then it should not have been made so illegally and inconsistent with church rules, but someone from the same Church, from the same sanctuary, from the same clergy should have been appointed bishop of this diocese and at the present time not to violate the rules that originate from the apostles. If this happened to any of you, would you cry out and demand punishment for breaking the rules? As before God, beloved, we say and affirm the absolute truth: this is not pious, illegal, not according to the rules of the Church. And what is told about Gregory’s actions upon entering Alexandria shows what the order of his installation was. In such a time of peace, as those who came from Alexandria said and as the bishops wrote, a fire was started in the church; virgins were naked, monks were trampled, presbyters and many of the people suffered abuse and violence, bishops were imprisoned, many were robbed; the holy Mysteries (for which they blamed the presbyter Macarius for disrespect) were stolen by the pagans and thrown to the ground; and this was done so that some would recognize Gregory’s ordination. But all such actions prove a violation of the rules. If Gregory’s ordination had been legal, he would not have forced those who lawfully did not obey him to obey through lawless actions. However, after such incidents you write that there is great peace in Alexandria and Egypt; Is your very concept of the world distorted, and do you call such turmoil peace? 31) But I also considered it necessary to point out to you: Athanasius asserted that Macarius was in Tire under military guard, and the accuser alone went with those going to Mareot, but the elders who wanted to be present during the investigation of the case were not allowed to do so, and the investigation of the cup and the meal was carried out in the presence of the eparch and those accompanying him, in the presence of pagans and Jews. We did not believe this at first when it was not proven from court records; and we marveled at this, and I think you will also marvel, beloved. Presbyters and clergy of the Mysteries are not allowed to be present, and in the presence of a lay judge, in the presence of catechumens, and, worst of all, pagans and Jews, known for their dislike of Christianity, an investigation is carried out about the blood of Christ and the body of Christ. If some kind of misconduct was really committed, then such a matter should have been legally investigated in the church by the clergy, and not by the pagans who abhor the teaching and do not know the truth. How great and important this sin is - and you see, as I am sure, and everyone sees. We said this about Athanasius. 32) About Marcellus (for you also wrote about him that he is dishonest against Christ), I tried to explain to you that, when he was here, he proved that everything you wrote about him was not true. And when we demanded that he expound his faith, he answered on his own with great boldness, and we admitted that he did not profess anything alien to the truth. For he confessed that he philosophizes so piously about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as the Universal Church also philosophizes, and he confirmed that not only now, but from ancient times this is the way of his thoughts, and likewise our elders, who were then at the Council of Nicaea, testified to his Orthodoxy. And he firmly stood by the fact that he then held, and now holds, thoughts contrary to the Arian heresy, of which it would be fair to remind you, so that no one accepts such a heresy, but everyone abhors it as alien to sound teaching. So, since he is right-thinking and has testified to his Orthodoxy, what should we do with him again? Shouldn't he be recognized as a bishop, as he was recognized, and not excommunicated? I wrote this not out of desire to justify them, but to assure you that we accepted them fairly and in accordance with the rules, but you persist in vain. Justice also requires you to use diligence and take all measures so that what has been done not according to the rules is corrected and that the churches are reconciled, so that the peace given to us by the Lord may remain, divisions do not appear in the Churches, and reproach does not fall on you as the perpetrators of the schism. For I confess to you that what happened before served as a pretext not for peace, but for division. 33) Not only bishops Athanasius and Marcellus came here with a complaint that an insult had been done to them, but also many other bishops from Thrace, Cilesyria, Phenicia and Palestine, and a considerable number of presbyters, some from Alexandria, and others from other places, arrived at the local Council and in front of all the bishops who came together, in addition to other things that were said by them, they also complained that the Churches were suffering coercion and grievances, and confirmed not only in word, but also in deeds, that in their and in other Churches something similar to what happened in Alexandria happened. Also now, the presbyters, who came with letters from Egypt and Alexandria, announced with sorrow that many bishops and presbyters, having the desire to come to the Council, met with obstacles. And they said that even to this day, after the departure of Bishop Athanasius, bishops and confessors suffer beatings, others are kept in custody, and ancient men, who have been in the episcopate for a very long time, are handed over to correct public services, yet almost the clergy of the Universal Church and the people are subjected to slander and persecution. So they said that some bishops and brethren were expelled into captivity for no other reason, but only to force them to unwittingly enter into communication with Gregory and the Arians around him. And that in Ancyra of Galatia many things happened similar to what happened in Alexandria, we heard about this from others, but Bishop Marcellus also testified to the same thing. In addition, those who arrived here against some of you (I will not mention the names) brought similar and equally serious accusations, which I refuse to write about. But maybe you have heard about this from others. That is why I especially wrote to you, inviting you to come here, so that while you are here, you would hear about this, and so that everything could be corrected and healed. That is why those invited had to come willingly, and not refuse it, so that, by not appearing, they would not incur suspicion of what was said, as if they were unable to prove what they wrote about. 34) So, after these rumors, when the Churches really suffer from evil intentions, which those who informed us about this confirmed, who kindled the flame of dissent? Is it us who grieve over such deeds and sympathize with our suffering brothers, or those who caused this? I wonder why, given such great disorder there in each of your Churches, which is why those who came here came here, you write that there is unanimity in the Churches. But such deeds serve not to build, but to destroy the Church, and those who rejoice in them are not children of peace, but of disorder. Our God “is not... a God of disorder, but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, as God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows, caring for you and wanting the Churches not to be in disarray, but to remain as legitimized by the apostles, I considered it necessary to write this to you, so that you can finally shame those who, through mutual enmity, have brought the Churches to such a state. For I have heard that the number of people who are guilty of all this is not great. As those who have been clothed “in the womb of generosity” (Col. 3:12), try to correct what, as I said, was not done according to the rules, so that if anything bad has crept in, it will be healed by your diligence. And don’t write: “You preferred communication with Marcellus and Athanasius to communicating with us.” Such words are not a sign of peace, but of perseverance and brotherly hatred. This is why I wrote what was said above, so that you would know that they were not accepted by me in defiance of justice, and would stop such strife. If you came, and they were exposed, and they did not have any solid evidence in their defense, then you would have the right to write in this way. Since, as I have already said, we have fellowship with them according to the rule and not contrary to justice, then I beg you by Christ, do not allow the members of Christ to be dissolved, do not believe your prejudices, but prefer the peace of the Lord. For it is dishonest and unfair - through the cowardice of some, to reject those who have not been convicted and thereby offend the Spirit. If you think that you can prove otherwise against them and expose them to their face, then let those who wish to come. For they told us that they were ready to do this, if only they could prove and make clear everything they had announced. 35) Let us know about this, beloved, so that we can write both to them and to the bishops, who must come again, so that in the presence of everyone the guilty will be exposed, and there will be no more disorder in the Churches. For it is enough what happened before, it is enough that bishops were expelled in the presence of bishops, which should not be discussed much, lest it seem grave to those who were present at this matter. If one were to tell the truth, it should not have come to this and extended cowardice to such an extent. Let Athanasius and Marcellus, you write, be removed from their places, what can we say about the other bishops and presbyters who came here, as I already said, from various places? And they also said about themselves that they were expelled and suffered the same thing. Church courts are already being carried out not according to the Gospel, beloved, but they are seeking imprisonment and death. If indeed, as you say, there was some guilt in them, then according to the church rule, and not like that, the trial should have been carried out; It was necessary to write to all of us, so that in this way a fair decision would be pronounced by all. For the bishops suffered, not just any small Churches suffered, but those over which the apostles personally ruled. Why was it not written to us, especially about the Church of Alexandria? Or maybe you don’t know that there was this custom - before they wrote to us, and here it was already decided who was right. So, if any suspicion fell on the local bishop, it was necessary to write to the local Church. Now they did not give us clear information, but they themselves did the matter as they wanted, and finally they demand that, without examining the matter, we cast the same vote with them. These are not Paul’s decrees, this is not how the Fathers betrayed them, this is a different way of acting, this is a new destiny. I beg you, bear it complacently; What I write serves for the common benefit. For what we received from the blessed Apostle Peter, I declare to you, and I would not have written with the thought that this is known to everyone, if what happened had not alarmed us. Bishops are kidnapped and removed, others are put in their places from the outside, others are plotted against, which is why believers cry over the kidnapped bishops, and because of those sent they endure coercion, not having the will to demand whom they want, and not to accept whom they do not want. I ask you, so that this does not happen anymore, rather complain about those who act this way, so that the Churches do not tolerate anything like this, not a single bishop or presbyter is insulted or forced, as reported to us, to act against his conviction, otherwise the pagans will laugh at us, and most of all, we will anger God, because each of us on the day of judgment will give an account of everything that we did here. Oh, that everyone would philosophize according to God, so that the Church, having received its bishops, would rejoice in Christ Jesus our Lord! In Him be glory to the Father forever and ever! Amen. I wish you, beloved and longed-for brethren, to be strong in the Lord. 36) Thus the Council of Rome wrote through Julius, Bishop of Rome. Since the followers of Eusebius again began to riot, outraged the Churches and plotted many intrigues, the God-loving kings Constantius and Constance, having learned about this, ordered the bishops of the West and East to gather in the city of Sardica. Meanwhile, Eusebius ended his life. And when many bishops had gathered from everywhere, we called the accomplices of Eusebius to trial. But they, having their deeds before their eyes and seeing their accusers come, were afraid of judgment. For while everyone had gathered together in simplicity, they again brought with them the Comites - Musonianus and Hesychius Castrisius, so that, as was their custom, they would do with their authority what they pleased. Since the Council acted without committees, and there was not a single soldier present, they, tormented by conscience, became confused, because their trial was carried out not as they wanted, but as required by the law of truth. Why, after many of our invitations, after the Council of Bishops invited them, saying: “You came to sue, so why are you holding back when you came here? You should either not have come, or, if you did, not hide. This serves as the greatest conviction for you. Here Athanasius and the others with him, whom you slandered in absentia, came here so that if you have anything against them, you would denounce them personally. If you cannot denounce and show that you do not want this, then you are obvious slanderers, and this judgment will be pronounced by the Council on you.” Having heard this, and condemned by their conscience (for they knew what they had done and invented against us), they were ashamed to appear in court, thereby exposing themselves to a great and absurd slander. Why did the Holy Council, having condemned their indecent and suspicious flight, accept our justification? When we recounted what had been done to us, and presented witnesses and evidence, then everyone was surprised and admitted that this was probably why they were afraid of the Council, so as not to be exposed to their face, and they said: “They came here from the East, assuming, perhaps, that Athanasius and the others would not appear with him; Having seen that they are acting boldly and calling them to trial, they now flee.” So, the Council accepted us as those who had been wronged and slandered in vain, and even more so they affirmed all communication and love with us. And the accomplices of Eusebius’ evil, who showed their shamelessness, namely: Theodora from Heraclius, Narcissus from Neronias, Acacius from Caesarea, Stephen from Antioch, Ursatius and Valens from Pannonia, Minophant from Ephesus and George from Laodicea, were deposed by the Council; to all the bishops and to the region of each of those who suffered the offense they wrote the following: You might be interested in: