the Emperor, and was allowed to dispute in his presence with Basil the Great as his opponent.  Athanasius himself, in circumstances very similar to Cyril’s, declined to appear before Eu- sebius and a Synod of Arian Bishops at Cæsarea, by whom he was condemned a.d. 334, and appealed in person to Constantine, requesting either that a lawful Council of Bishops might be assembled, or that the Emperor would himself receive his defence.40” In justification of Cyril’s appeal it is enough to say that it was impossible for him to submit to the judgment of Acacius and his Arian colleagues.  They could not be impartial in a matter where the jurisdiction of Acacius their president, and his unsoundness in the Faith, were as much in question as any of the charges brought against Cyril.  He took the xv only course open to him in requesting the Emperor to remit his case to the higher jurisdiction of a greater Council, and in giving formal notice of this appeal to the Bishops who had ex- pelled him. While the appeal was pending, Cyril became acquainted with “ the learned Bishop, Basil of Ancyra “ (Hefele), with Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia, and George of Laodicea, the chief leaders of the party “usually (since Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated Semi-Arian41.”  One of the charges brought against Cyril in the Council of Constantinople (360, a.d.) was, as we shall see, that he held communion with these Bishops. Cyril had not long to wait for the hearing of his appeal.  In the year 359 the Eastern Bishops met at Seleucia in Isauria, and the Western at Ariminum.  Constantius had at first wished to convene a general Council of all the Bishops of the Empire, but this intention he was induced to abandon by representations of the long journeys and expense, and he therefore directed the two Synods then assembled at Ariminum and at Seleucia “the Rugged” to investigate first the disputes concerning the Faith, and then to turn their attention to the complaints of Cyril, and other Bishops against unjust decrees of deposition and banish- ment42.  This order of proceeding was discussed, and after much controversy adopted on the first day of meeting, the 27th of September43.  On the second day Acacius and his friends refused to remain unless the Bishops already deposed, or under accusation, were excluded.  Theodoret relates that “ several friends of peace tried to persuade Cyril of Jerusalem to withdraw, but that, as he would not comply, Acacius left the assembly44.”  Three days after- wards, according to Sozomen, a third meeting was held at which the demand of Acacius was complied with; “for the Bishops of the opposite party were determined that he should have no pretext for dissolving the Council, which was evidently his object in order to prevent 40 Athan. contr. Arianos Apol. c. 36:  Hefele, ii. p. 27, note. 41 Robertson, Prolegomena ad Athanas. ii. § 8 (2) c. 42 Soz. iv. 17. 43 Socrat. ii. 39. 44 H. E. ii. 26. 12 Life of S. Cyril.