frivolous charges laid against him, was the hatred of Acacius, incurred by the refusal to ac- knowledge the Metropolitan jurisdiction of the See of Cæsarea.  The deposition was con- firmed 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 xvii was soon followed by the recall of all the exiled Bishops, orthodox and heretical, and the restoration of their confiscated estates55.  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 strife56.”  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. It happened that the son of a heathen priest attached to the Emperor’s Court, having been instructed in his youth by a Deaconess whom he visited with his mother, had secretly become a Christian.  On discovering this, his father had cruelly scourged and burnt him with hot spits on his hands, and feet, and back.  He contrived to escape, and took refuge with his friend the Deaconess.  “‘She dressed me in women’s garments, and took me in her covered carriage to the divine Meletius.  He handed me over to the Bishop of Jerusalem, at that time Cyril, and we started by night for Palestine.’  After the death of Julian, this young man led his father also into the way of truth.  This act he told me with the rest57.” The next incident recorded in the life of S. Cyril is his alleged prediction of the failure of Julian’s attempt to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem.  “The vain and ambitious mind of Julian,” says Gibbon, “might aspire to restore the ancient glory of the Temple of Jerusalem.  As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation.”  Again he writes:  “The Christians entertained a nat- ural and pious expectation, that in this memorable contest, the honour of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle58.”  That such an expectation may have been shared by Cyril is not impossible:  but there is no satisfactory evidence that he ventured to foretell 55 Socr. H. E. iii. 1. 56 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.” 57 Theodoret, H. E. iii. 10. 58 Gibbon, c. xxiii. 15 Life of S. Cyril.