Here _Baronius_ exults. Behold, says he, one of the most eminent Prelates of the Church, upon Suspicion of Heresy, arraigned at _Rome_, judged at _Rome_. [Sidenote: _That argues no Jurisdiction in the Bishop of_ Rome.] Who does not see a supreme Tribunal erected there, to which all Causes must be brought; a sovereign Judge residing there, by whom all Persons must be absolved or condemned; is either blind and cannot see, or shuts his Eyes and will not see[473]. And does not the sharp-sighted Annalist himself see what every one the least conversant in Ecclesiastical History must see, if he is not either blind and cannot, or shuts his Eyes and will not see, _viz._ Bishops, when guilty, or only suspected of Heresy, accused to some of their Collegues, who neither had nor claimed any Jurisdiction over them? Thus was the famous _Paul_ of _Samosata_, Bishop of _Antioch_, at this very Time, accused by his whole Church, first to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and soon after to _Firmilian_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_[474]. That such an Accusation argued any Jurisdiction in those Bishops over the Bishop of _Antioch_, is what _Baronius_ himself dares not affirm; and yet a like Accusation brought to _Rome_ is enough for him to transform that See into a supreme Tribunal; that Bishop, though far from such ambitious Thoughts, into a sovereign Judge. But the Bishop of _Rome_, says _Baronius_, required of _Dionysius_ a Confession or Declaration of his Faith: And does not that argue Superiority and Jurisdiction? _Baronius_ himself knew it does not: for it is impossible he should not know, that when a Bishop was suspected of Heresy, all his Collegues had a Right to require of him Confession of his Faith, and not to communicate with him till they had received it. [Sidenote: Paul _Bishop of_ Antioch _condemned and deposed_,]