For by wrong pointing a Passage in the _Latin_ Translation of that Author, he makes him contradict himself, and ascribe the deposing of _Paul_ to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Rome_, and the Great _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, though the latter was dead before _Paul_ was deposed, as is evident from the Letter which was written by the Council on that Occasion, and is addressed to _Maximus_ the Successor of _Dionysius_ in the See of _Alexandria_[N9.1]. The Passage runs thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere, qui_ Samosatensem _sustulere, quorum alter_ Romæ, _alter_ Alexandriæ _Præsul erat_[N9.2]. The Meaning of St. _Basil_ is, that the two _Dionysius’s_ flourished before the Council of _Antioch_, which consisted of Seventy Bishops, and deposed _Paul_ of _Samosata_; that is, before the Second Council that was assembled against him; for another had been convened in the same City about eight Years before to depose him; but upon his pretending to renounce his Errors, the Sentence had been suspended. The above-quoted Passage _Baronius_ stops thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere; qui_ Samosatensem _deposuere_, &c. so that the Relative _qui_ refers, according to this Method of Pointing, to the Two _Dionysius’s_, and not to the Seventy Bishops: as if St. _Basil_ had said, _The Two_ Dionysius_’s, who deposed_ Paul _of_ Samosata, _flourished before the Council of_ Antioch, _which was composed of Seventy Bishops_[N9.3]. So that _Paul_ must be twice deposed, St. _Basil_ must contradict himself, all the Writers of those Times must be arraigned as guilty of an unpardonable Omission, lest the Bishop of _Rome_ should appear to have been, what he really was, an idle Spectator of a Transaction so famous in the History of the Church. A Writer of any Honour or Honesty had rather give up a Cause, than expose himself thus by attempting to defend it. Footnote N9.1: Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. Footnote N9.2: Basil. de syn. p. 918. Footnote N9.3: Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10. -----