That these two Bishops should have applied to St. _Ambrose_, and not to _Syricius_, is what _Baronius_ cannot brook; and therefore to bring in, right or wrong, the Bishop of _Rome_, he quotes a Passage of the Council of _Toledo_, where the Fathers of that Assembly, speaking of the Letter which St. _Ambrose_ had written in favour of _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_, adds the following Words in a Parenthesis; _Which Things were likewise suggested by Pope Syricius, of holy Memory_[N26.1]. But as these Words have no manner of Connection with the rest, it is manifest they have been foisted in on Purpose to bring _Syricius_ upon the Stage; and were we to admit them as genuine, we could only conclude from thence, that _Syricius_ too had written to the Bishops of _Spain_ in behalf of _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_. _Baronius_ indeed goes a great way farther; for he infers from the above-mentioned Words, that St. _Ambrose_ acted by the Advice and Direction of _Syricius_; and from thence by a second Inference, which could occur to none but himself, that both _Ambrose_, and _Simplicius_, who succeeded him in the See of _Milan_, were the Pope’s Legates[N26.2]. It is by such far-fetched Inferences and Deductions that he endeavours, throughout his voluminous Performance, to mislead his unwary Readers into a Belief of the Pope’s Supremacy. Footnote N26.1: Concil. t. 2. p. 1230. Footnote N26.2: Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 54. ----- [Sidenote: _and are admitted to the Communion of the Church by the Council of_ Toledo.] In the Year 438. of the _Spanish_, and 400. of the common Æra, a Council was held at _Toledo_; and, in the Presence of that Assembly, _Symphosius_, _Dictinius_, and _Comasus_, one of _Symphosius_’s Presbyters, solemnly abjured the Errors of _Priscillian_, anathematized the Doctrine, Sect, and Books of that Heretic, and readily signed the Confession of Faith which the Council had drawn up. Their Example was followed by Three other Bishops, _viz._ _Paternus_, _Isonius_, and _Vegetinus_, who were all admitted to the Communion of the Church, and even allowed to keep their Sees, though unduly preferred, _on Condition the Bishops of_ Rome _and_ Milan _should consent thereto, and restore them to the Peace of the Church_[1259]. From these Words, which are the very Words of the Council, it is manifest, first, that the Fathers, who composed that Assembly, were Strangers to the Bishop of _Rome_’s universal Jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the Bishop of _Milan_ did not act, as _Baronius_ pretends, on that Occasion as the Pope’s Legate. Their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of _Milan_, besides that of the Bishop of _Rome_, sufficiently proves the one; and their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of _Rome_, besides that of the Bishop of _Milan_, the other.