Of any intimate friendship between Cyril, and these Semi-Arian leaders, we have no evidence in the vague charges of Acacius:  their common fault was that they condemned him in the Synod of Seleucia.  The true reason of Cyril’s deposition, barely concealed by the frivolous charges laid against him, was the hatred of Acacius, incurred by the refusal to acknowledge the Metropolitan jurisdiction of the See of Cæsarea.  The deposition was confirmed by Constantius, and followed by a sentence of banishment.  The place of Cyril’s exile is not mentioned; nor is it known whether he joined in the protest of the other deposed Bishops, described by S. Basil, Epist. 75.  His banishment was not of longer continuance than two years.  Constantius died on the 3rd of November, 361, and the accession of Julian was soon followed by the recall of all the exiled Bishops, orthodox and heretical, and the restoration of their confiscated estates Socr. H. E. iii. 1..  Julian’s object, according to Socrates, was “ to brand the memory of Constantius by making him appear to have been cruel towards his subjects.”  An equally amiable motive imputed to him is mentioned by Sozomen:  “It is said that he issued this order in their behalf not out of mercy, but that through contention among themselves the Church might be involved in fraternal strife Sozom. H. E. v. c. 5.  Compare Gibbon, Ch. xxiii.:  “The impartial Ammianus has ascribed this affected clemency to the desire of fomenting the intestine divisions of the Church.”.”  Cyril, returning with the other Bishops, seems to have passed through Antioch on his way home, and to have been well received by the excellent Bishop Meletius.