Section XVI

Now if those who are not strangers to the monuments of history know, as is fitting, both how tenacious Chrysostom was of ancient and sincere doctrine, and with how many encomia of praise Isidore of Pelusium¹, Sozomen², Palladius and³ Theodore, George⁴, Bishop of Alexandria, Photius⁵, Leo⁶, surnamed the Wise, Suidas⁷, and Philotheus⁸, Patriarch of Constantinople, celebrated his ὀρθοδοξίαν, right opinion concerning religion, his excellent skill in the Scriptures, and his incredible eloquence, they, I doubt not, will descend unanimously to this opinion with me: that it could in no way have happened that ecclesiastical writers who flourished before or after Chrysostom judged otherwise than he judged, repeated, and inculcated concerning the division of the divine will into the first and the second, and concerning the nature and splendid endowments of the former. That this may be held most firmly not by a mere anticipation of mind, but also by the experiment itself, I shall take care to bring forward the more notable testimonies of the ancients, first those by which the doctrine of Chrysostom, bound to fixed formulas, is confirmed, and then those by which, although more loosely, the same doctrine is nevertheless set forth no less clearly.