Cyril.  From32 Socrates we learn that Cyril was frequently summoned to submit to the judgment of Acacius, but for two whole years refused to appear.  He was therefore deposed by Acacius and the other Arian Bishops of Palestine on the charge of having sold the property of the Church, as before mentioned.  Socrates, who confesses that he does not know for what Cyril was accused, yet suggests that he was afraid to meet the accusations33.  But Theodoret, a more impartial witness, says34 that Acacius took advantage of some slight oc- casion (ἀφορμάς) and deposed him.  Sozomen35 also describes the accusation as a pretext (ἐπὶ προφάσει τοιᾷδε), and the deposition as hastily decreed, to forestall any countercharge of heresy by Cyril (φθάνει καθελών).  The deposition was quickly followed by Cyril’s expul- sion from Jerusalem, and a certain Eutychius was appointed to succeed him36.  Passing by Antioch, which at this time, 357–358, was left without a Bishop by the recent decease of the aged Arian Leontius Castratus37, Cyril took refuge in Tarsus with its Bishop the “admirable Silvanus,” “one of the Semi-Arians,” who, as Athanasius testifies, agreed almost entirely with the Nicene doctrine, only taking offence at the expression ὁμοούσιος, because in their opinion it contained latent Sabellianism38.”  Cyril now sent to the Bishops who had deposed him a formal notice that he appealed to a higher Court (μεῖζον ἐπεκαλέσατο δικαστήριον ), and his appeal was approved by the Emperor Constantius39.  Acasius, on learning the place of Cyril’s retreat, wrote to Silvanus announcing his deposition.  But Silvanus out of respect both to Cyril, and to the people, who were delighted with his teaching, still permitted him to exercise his ministry in the Church.  Socrates finds fault with Cyril for his appeal:  “In this,” he says, “he was the first and only one who acted contrary to the custom of the Ecclesiastical Canon, by having recourse to appeals as in a civil court.”  The reproach implied in this statement is altogether undeserved.  The question, as Touttée argues, is not whether others had done the like before or after, but whether Cyril’s appeal was in accordance with natural justice, and the custom of the Church.  On the latter point he refers to the case of the notorious heretic Photinus, who after being condemned in many Councils appealed to 32 Hist. Eccl. ii. 40. 33 Ib. 34 Ib. ii. 26. 35 H. E. iv. 25. 36 There is much uncertainty and confusion in the names of the Bishops who succeeded Cyril on the three occasions of his being deposed.  His successor in 357 is said by Jerome to have been a certain Eutychius, probably the same who was afterwards excommunicated at Seleucia (Dict. Chr. Biogr. Eutychius 13).  The subject is dis- cussed at length by Touttée (Diss. I. vii.). 37 See the account of his remarkable career in the Dict. Chr. Biogr. 38 Athan. De Synodis, c. xii.; Hefele, ii. 262. 39 Socrates, H. E. ii. 40. 11 Life of S. Cyril.