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; in addition, that their former proceedings at Tyre were fraudulent, because the investigation of what had taken place at Mareotes was on one side of the question only; not only this, but that the charge respecting Arsenius had plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did Julius write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch; we should have inserted here at length, these as well as those letters which were addressed to Julius, did not their prolixity interfere with our purpose. But Sabinus, the advocate of the Macedonian heresy, of whom we have before spoken, has not incorporated the letters of Julius in his Collection of Synodical Transactions;  although he has not omitted that which the bishops of Antioch sent to Julius. This, however, is usual with him; he carefully introduces such letters as make no reference to, or wholly repudiate the term homoousion; while he purposely passes over in silence those of a contrary tendency. This is sufficient on this subject. Not long after this, Paul, pretending to make a journey from Thessalonica to Corinth, arrived in Italy: upon which both the bishops  made an appeal to the emperor of those parts, laying their respective cases before him.
 Sozom. X. 3 follows Socrates. The contents of the letter written by Julius to the Eusebians, found in Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos, c. 20, are different from those here given by Socrates. Julius there complains of their ignoring his invitation to the synod at Rome, but says nothing of any canon such as is mentioned here. Cf. ch. 8, note 2.  See above, ch. 15.  Athanasius and Paul.
 See above, ch. 15.
 Athanasius and Paul.