The following Year, 391. a great Council was convened at _Capua_, chiefly with a View to restore Peace to the Church of _Antioch_, and put an End to the Schism, which had long prevailed there, and had occasioned almost an intire Separation between the East and the West, as I have related elsewhere[1291]. _Paulinus_, who was acknowleged for lawful Bishop of that City by Part of the Catholics there, by the Bishops of _Egypt_, _Arabia_, _Cyprus_, by the Bishop of _Rome_, and all the Western Bishops, died about the Year 388[1292]. But the unhappy Division, which had reigned during his Life, continued to reign even after his Death. For _Paulinus_, by a most unaccountable Conduct, and a most notorious and open Violation of the Canons, took upon him not only to appoint himself a Successor before he died, but to ordain him alone. The Person whom he thus both named and ordained, was one _Evagrius_, a Presbyter, with whom he had always lived in close Friendship[1293]; and who on that Account was, notwithstanding his illegal Election and Ordination, acknowleged by _Paulinus_’s Party for Bishop of _Antioch_. _Theodoret_ writes, that the Bishop of _Rome_, with the other Western Bishops, and those of _Egypt_, embraced his Communion[1294]. But _Ambrose_ assures us, that the Bishops of _Egypt_ stood neuter, suspending all Communication both with _Evagrius_, and his Competitor _Flavianus_; and speaks in such manner of both, as gives us room to suppose that he himself communicated with neither. _Both rely more on the Invalidity of their Competitor’s Ordination_, says he, _than on the Validity of their own. It is therefore with Reason that_ Flavianus _declines a fair Tryal, and not without Reason that_ Evagrius _does not demand one_[1295]. The Example of _Ambrose_ was, in all Likelihood, followed by the Bishop of _Rome_, and the other Western Bishops; or _Ambrose_, perhaps, conformed to theirs[N31]. ----- Footnote N31: A modern Writer will have it by all means, that _Syricius_ communicated with _Evagrius_[N31.1], because he had always opposed _Flavianus_, as his Predecessors had done. But surely from his espousing the Cause of _Paulinus_, who was legally chosen, against _Flavianus_, whose Election was contested, we cannot well conclude, that, in Opposition to him, he likewise took the Part of one whose Election was indisputably illegal. It is far more probable, that he communicated with neither. Footnote N31.1: M. Launoy, ep. 7. p. 10. -----