'Tis true, both he and _Symphosius_ are styled _Bishops of holy Memory_, in the Abstract of the Council of _Toledo_, which is supposed to have been done about the Year 447. This is all _Baronius_ can plead in favour of his _eminent Sanctity_. A poor Charter indeed to hold a Place in Heaven by, and claim the Worship and Honours attending it! For the Author of that Abstract is utterly unknown; and, besides, he canonizes alike _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_, styling them both Bishops of holy Memory. Why then should his Authority have so much Weight with respect to the one, and none at all in regard of the other? If we bar Prescription, which surely can have no room here, _Dictinius_ can have no more Right to keep the Place he has, than _Symphosius_ to claim the Place he has not. Nay, the latter would have a far better Right, were it true, that _Dictinius_ relapsed into the Errors he had abjured, and was on that Account deposed with several other Bishops of his Sect. This I read in an Author of great Note[1267]; but as he advances it upon the Authority of another, _viz._ of _Idatius_ the Chronologist, and the Passage he quotes is not to be found in that Writer, at least in the Editions I have perused, it would be both unjust and ungenerous to deprive _Dictinius_ of, or disturb him in, the Possession of his Saintship upon such an Evidence. [Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Priscillianists _takes deep Root in_ Spain.] _Syricius_ and _Ambrose_, in Conjunction with the Catholic Bishops of _Spain_, alarmed at the wonderful Progress the Doctrine of _Priscillian_ had made in so short a Time, left nothing unattempted they could think of to put a Stop to the growing Evil. But all to no Purpose; in spite of their utmost Efforts, in defiance of the most severe Laws, that were enacted against them, especially by the Emperors _Honorius_, and _Theodosius_ the younger, their Numbers increased daily, and their Doctrine grew daily more popular; the Severities that were practised against them, serving only to recommend those to the Esteem and Veneration of the Multitude, who suffered them, as many did, with Patience and Constancy. As they held it lawful to conceal their real Sentiments from the Catholics, by disowning them with the most solemn Oaths; the Catholics suffered themselves to be led by a mistaken Zeal into the same Error, disowning, in like manner, their Sentiments, the better to discover those of their Adversaries. But this pernicious Practice of _defending Truth by destroying it, and opposing Lyes by Lying_, was fully and unanswerably confuted by _Austin_, in his Answer to _Consentius_, who had writ to him at Length upon that Subject[1268][N27]. ----- Footnote N27: