Constantine II was pleased with Athanasius and allowed him to return to Alexandria on June 17, 337. This amnesty included all the exiled bishops. Athanasius arrived in Alexandria on November 23 of the same year. The Arians were disturbed and sought in both East and West to recognize the authority of their candidate Pistus over the Church of Alexandria. They wrote to all the bishops of the world to this effect. They sent a priest named Macarius and two deacons to Julius, Bishop of Rome, to inform him of the decisions of the Council of Tyre and to convince him of the legality of their work and the necessity of his recognition of their bishop. The Orthodox bishops of Egypt held a council in 338 to study the situation and take the necessary measures. They made a decision supporting their bishop Athanasius and criticizing the decision of the Council of Tyre. They wrote a peace letter about all this and addressed it to Julius, Bishop of Rome, to all the bishops of the world, and to the three emperors who succeeded Constantine.
Julius, Bishop of Rome, summoned his colleague Athanasius to Rome and sent two priests to the East to summon the Arian and other bishops to an ecumenical council in Verma to decide the issue at hand. In early 340, the Arian bishops rejected Julius' proposal and protested against the reconsideration of an Eastern issue decided by an Eastern council, and threatened to sever relations with him if he recognized Athanasius. The most famous bishops who signed this protest were Flacellus, Bishop of Antioch, and Eusebius, Bishop of Constantinople. The latter succeeded in removing Paulus - Paul the Confessor - from the See of Constantinople and replaced him and made Amphiontus his successor in Nicomedia. Eusebius of Nicomedia had been killed before this protest.
Julius responded strongly to this protest, stating that “all” bishops must be informed of the decisions taken so that “all” may participate in the establishment of the truth. Some scholars of the sister Latin Church see in this response evidence of the authority of Rome. It is an expansion of the conclusion that is not approved by the rules of logic. All that can be said is that the Bishop of Rome demanded in his response that “all” bishops of the universal church be informed and involved in the establishment of the truth. Recognizing the authority of “all,” that is, the ecumenical councils, is a clear Christian historical fact that no two people disagree about.
