52 – The reading ‘pactum’ which is suggested by Valerius is
here adopted instead of ‘factum’, which seems to give no
satisfactory sense.
53 – Fleury remarks on this ♦‘This letter plainly shews that
the Bishops who were there present (i. e. at the Council
of Aquileia) either did not acknowledge the Council which
had been lately held at Constantinople to be an Œcumenical
Council, or that they were not yet informed of what had
been transacted in it.
54 – In the regard of the question between Nectarius and
Maximus, the Western Bishops had been deceived by the
latter. Maximus, called the Cynic because he retained the
outward garb of a Cynic philosopher after he professed to
have become a Christian, was irregularly ♦consecrated at
Constantinople, but was never recognised, and was formally
pronounced by the Council not to be a true Bishop. He then
went about trying to stir up other Churches in his favour.
See Prof. Bright’s Hist. of the Church, pp. 160–166.
Nectarius was elected after the resignation of Gregory
Nazianzen, during the Council of Constantinople. He, like
S. Ambrose, was unbaptized and held a high civil office at
the time of his election.
55 – This is translated from an ingenious and probable
conjecture of Valesius.
56 – The text through this long sentence is confused and
ungrammatical, but it conveys the general sense expressed
in the translation with tolerable clearness.