Socrates

“There were present at this Synod ninety bishops from various cities. Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome…


“…Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome's peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed. These persons considering themselves treated with indignity by the reproaches of Julius, called a council at Antioch, assembled themselves and dictated a reply to his letters as the expression of the unanimous feeling of the whole Synod. It was not his province, they said, to take notice of their decisions in reference to any whom they might wish to expel from their churches; seeing that they had not opposed themselves to him, when Novatus was ejected from the church. These things the bishops of the Eastern church communicated to Julius, bishop of Rome…


“…When Julius, bishop of Rome, was apprised of these fresh machinations of the Arians against Athanasius, and had also received the letter of the then deceased Eusebius, he invited the persecuted Athanasius to come to him, having ascertained where he was secreted. The epistle also of the bishops who had been some time before assembled at Antioch, just then reached him; and at the same time others from the bishops in Egypt, assuring him that the entire charge against Athanasius was a fabrication. On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith….


“....There were present at this synod of Antioch ninety bishops from various cities. But Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, who had succeeded Macarius, did not go, remembering that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe to the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of great Rome, there, nor did he send a representative, although the ecclesiastical canon orders that the churches may make no ordinances contrary to the mind of the bishop of Rome.


“Athanasius at last reached Italy. . . . At the same time, Paul of the city of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra of Galatia Minor, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been expelled from their churches on various charges, reached royal Rome. Each of these laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome, who, exercising the privilege of the church in Rome, fortified them with outspoken letters, and sent them back to the East, restoring to each his proper place, and upbraiding those who had hastily deposed them. They sailed away from Rome, and trusting to the impresses of Bishop Julius, they again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to those to whom they were addressed. These people considered themselves treated with indignity by the reproaches of Julius; they assembled in council at Antioch, and dictated a reply to his letters, as the expression of the feeling of the whole synod. It was not his province, they said, to notice their decisions in reference to any whom they might wish to expel from their churches, seeing that they had not opposed him when Novatus was ejected from the Church. These things the eastern bishops sent to Julius, bishop of Rome.


“ . . . When Julius, bishop of Rome, was aware of these fresh plots of the Arians against Athanasius, and had also received the letter of Eusebius, then dead, he summoned Athanasius, having learnt where he was hidden. The letter of the bishops who had previously assembled at Antioch reached him just then, with others from the bishops in Egypt assuring him that the charge against Athanasius was a fabrication. On receipt of these contradictory documents, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had shown in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not summoned him to the council (the ecclesiastical canon orders that the churches may make no ordinances contrary to the mind of the bishop of Rome), and saying that they deceitfully perverted the faith. ” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 2 [AD. 439]).


“When those convened at Sardica, as well as those who 1 had formed a separate synod at Philippopolis in Thrace, had ' each done what they considered right, they returned to their own cities. The West therefore was separated from the East, and the boundary of communion between them was the hill called Tisoukis, which belongs to the people of Illyria and / Thrace. As far as this hill, there was indiscriminate communion, I though the faith happened to be different; but beyond they did not communicate with one another. Such was the confused state of the churches at that time.” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3 [AD. 439]).


“This Celestine took away the churches from the Novatianists at Rome, and forced their bishop, Rousticula, to hold meetings packed in houses. Until then the Novatianists had flourished greatly at Rome, possessing many churches, well attended. But envy attacked them also, and the Roman episcopate, like that of Alexandria, went beyond the office of the priesthood, to its present state of domination. And from then the bishops would not allow even those who agreed with them to assemble in peace, but took away all they had, only praising them for their agreement. But those in Constantinople did not behave like that.” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 7 [AD. 439]).