If _Syricius_ is to blame (and who, but _Baronius_, can excuse him?) for not acknowleging _Flavianus_, at least after the Death of _Paulinus_, the Election of his Successor _Evagrius_ being unquestionably uncanonical and illegal; how much more is he to blame for not acknowleging him even after the Death of _Evagrius_, when he had no Pretence whatsoever for denying him his Communion, and by granting it he might have put an End to the Schism? _Baronius_, to conceal the Truth, and mislead his Readers, takes a great deal of Pains, in his Account of this Schism, to place in a false Light all the Transactions relating to it. But, in spite of all the Art he has been able to use, to varnish over the Conduct of _Syricius_, and impose on the Public, it must appear undeniable to every impartial, I may say, to every rational, Man, that the Schism, and the many Evils attending it, which are pathetically described by _Chrysostom_, who was then at _Antioch_[N38.1], were intirely owing to the Pride and Obstinacy of the Bishop of _Rome_, at least during the last Six Years, that is, from the Year 382. when _Evagrius_ died, to 388. when he yielded, at last, upon his being courted to it by a solemn Embassy. He had nothing then to object against the Election, and much less against the Conduct of _Flavianus_; and, if he had nothing then, he could have nothing before; so that it was merely from a haughty and obstinate Spirit that he refused to communicate with him, and, by such a Refusal, kept up and fomented a Division so pernicious to the Church. _Baronius_ represents him as labouring with indefatigable Pains to restore the Tranquillity of the Church, and leaving nothing unattempted that could any-ways contribute to the promoting of so pious an Undertaking, an Undertaking which he had so much at Heart. But that he had nothing at Heart besides the Glory of his See, is but too manifest from his Conduct; for the Minute that was saved, as it was by the above-mentioned Deputation, all the Difficulties vanished at once, which till then had obstructed the Work. As for the Conduct of _Flavianus_, in refusing to submit his Cause to the Judgment of the Council of _Capua_, or of the _Egyptian_ Bishops, appointed to judge it by that Council, it must appear, if impartially considered, more worthy of Commendation than Blame, tho’ condemned, in very unbecoming Terms, by the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_. He had been chosen in the Oecumenical Council of _Constantinople_, in the Year 381. by the unanimous Voice of all the Bishops of the Diocese of the East, or the Patriarchate of _Antioch_, and soon after ordained in their Presence, at _Antioch_, with the Approbation of _Nestorius_, then Bishop of _Constantinople_, and the loud Acclamations of the far greater Part of the People of _Antioch_, promising themselves, in him, a second _Meletius_, in whose room he was chosen[N38.2].