From St. _Basil_, _Baronius_ runs to the Emperor _Aurelian_, begging of a Pagan Prince what he could not extort from a Catholic Bishop, a Declaration and Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: Paul _keeps Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation_.] The Reader must know, that _Paul_ having kept, by Force, Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation in Defiance of the Council, the Catholic Bishops had recourse to the Emperor, who, after hearing both Parties with great Attention, adjudged the House to him, who should be acknowleged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and the other Bishops of _Italy_[477]. This _Baronius_ interprets as an open Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy; and that his Readers may not overlook it, as most of them would be apt to do, he takes care to bespeak their Attention, by marking it in the Margin with the following Words in Capitals, _The Emperor_ Aurelian _acknowleges the Supremacy of the Church of_ Rome[478]. From this one would expect to find _Aurelian_ not only turned Christian, but prostrate at his Holiness’s Feet, and bowing down to kiss them: but our Annalist, to the great Disappointment of his Readers, after having thus raised their Attention, only repeats out of _Eusebius_ the Sentence pronounced by the Emperor, which he would have us suppose with him to have been owing to the Knowlege that Prince had of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Sentence whether favourable to the Pretensions of the See of_ Rome.] And why must the Pope’s Supremacy be brought in here rather than the Supremacy of the Bishops of _Ravenna_, of _Milan_, of _Aquileia_, &c. and, above all, the Supremacy of the collective Body of the _Italian_ Bishops? for to them, and not to any particular Bishop, the Cause was referred by the Emperor. As for the Emperor’s Conduct on this Occasion, it may be thus accounted for: That just and wise Prince observed the Bishops in the East greatly animated against _Paul_; and therefore apprehending them more sway’d by Passion and Prejudice than by Justice and Equity, he referred the Cause to the Bishops of _Italy_, who, he thought, would judge more impartially, as being placed at a Distance, and not engaged, at least not so warmly, in the Dispute[479]. [Sidenote: Dionysius _dies_,] But this happened Two Years after the Death of _Dionysius_; for he died on the 26th of _December_ 269. _Claudius_ and _Paternus_ being Consuls, after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Ten Years, Five Months, and Four Days, according to the most probable Opinion[480]. As he died in the Reign of _Claudius_ II. surnamed _the Gothic_, who is represented in the Acts of some pretended Martyrs as an implacable Enemy to the Christian Name, he is in some Martyrologies honoured with the Title of Martyr; [Sidenote: _not a Martyr_.] but as neither _Eusebius_, nor any other antient Writer, takes notice of that Prince’s having ever persecuted or molested the Christians, those Acts