However this may have been, Acacius, who as an Arian was likely to have little respect for the Council of Nicæa, seems to have claimed both precedence and jurisdiction over Cyril.  From Hist. Eccl. ii. 40. 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 accusations Ib..  But Theodoret, a more impartial witness, says Ib. ii. 26. that Acacius took advantage of some slight occasion (ἀφορμάς) and deposed him.  Sozomen H. E. iv. 25. 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 expulsion from Jerusalem, and a certain Eutychius was appointed to succeed him 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 discussed at length by Touttée (Diss. I. vii.)..  Passing by Antioch, which at this time, 357–358, was left without a Bishop by the recent decease of the aged Arian Leontius Castratus See the account of his remarkable career in the Dict. Chr. Biogr., 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 Sabellianism Athan. De Synodis, c. xii.; Hefele, ii. 262..”  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 Constantius Socrates, H. E. ii. 40..  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 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 Eusebius 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. Athan. contr. Arianos Apol. c. 36:  Hefele, ii. p. 27, note.”