4. In fact, if we spent half of the feast [1] reading and expounding only one inscription (the Book of the Acts of the Apostles), then when we were to begin with the introduction and let the word go into the very sea of the book, how much time would we use to reach the stories about Paul? Better yet, I'll try to find out for you from the introduction itself. "I wrote the first book to you, Theophilus" (Acts 1:1). How many questions do you think there are? First: why (Ev. Luke) reminds him (Theophilus) of his first book (the Gospel). Secondly, why does he call (this book) the word (λόγος) and not the Gospel, whereas Paul calls it the Gospel, when he speaks of Luke thus: "A brother who is praised in all churches for preaching the gospel" (2 Corinthians 8:18). Third, why does he say, "all that Jesus did and taught." If John, that beloved of Christ, who had such boldness, who was vouchsafed to bow down to that holy breast, drew the fountains of the Spirit from there, if he did not dare to say it, but was so careful that he said, "Many other things did Jesus do; but if I were to write about these things in detail, I think the world itself would not contain the books that were written" (John 21:25), then how did this (Luke) dare to say: "The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning"? Does this question seem unimportant to you? Moreover, there (in the Gospel it is said): "Venerable Theophilus" (Luke 1:3), a name with an adjective honorific. And the saints did not just say so, and it seems that we have already partially proved that in the Scriptures not a single iota, not a single feature is used in vain. So, if there are so many questions in the introduction, how much time would it take us to look at everything in order? That is why I had to go to Paul, having passed the interval (i.e. from the beginning of Acts 1 to Acts 9). Why, then, have we, having proposed questions, not added solutions to them? In order to accustom you not only to eat food that has been chewed, but also to invent a solution to thoughts, as doves do. And they feed their young, as long as they remain in the nest, from their mouths; and when they have time to bring them out of their nest, and see that their wings have grown, they do it no more, but bring the grain in their mouths and show it (to the children), and as the chicks that have waited (for food) come close, the mothers, leaving the food on the ground, order them to pick it up themselves. Thus did we: taking spiritual food on our lips, we invited you, as if we wanted to present to you, according to custom, a solution; And when you came and hoped to receive, We left (you) to choose your own thoughts. Thus, leaving the introduction, we hasten to Paul. And let us speak not only about how much benefit he brought to the church, but also about how much harm, because it is necessary to tell us about this as well. Let us say how he opposed the word of preaching, how he fought with Christ, how he persecuted the apostles, how he nourished hostile designs, how he disturbed the Church most of all. But let no one be ashamed to hear this of Paul: it is not for accusation, but for his praise. It would be shameful for him not that he was evil before became good, but if he, having been good before, then went over to the side of evil: deeds are always judged by their end. And of the helmsmen, though they suffer a thousand wrecks before they have time to come to the harbor, we do not speak ill of them, when they bring a ship filled with cargo, because the end has covered the past. And the wrestlers, even if they have been defeated a thousand times before, if only they win the struggle for the crown, we, because of previous defeats, do not deprive them of the praise that follows such a victory. Let us do the same with regard to Paul. And he, although he suffered innumerable shipwrecks, yet when he came to the harbor, he brought a ship full of cargo. As it did not profit Judas in the least that he was formerly a disciple and then became a traitor, so it did not harm this (Paul) in the least that he was formerly a persecutor, and afterwards became an evangelist. This is to the praise of Paul, not because he destroyed the church, but because he built it up again; not because he opposed the word (sermon), but because after he had opposed the word, he himself spread it again; not because he persecuted the apostles, not because he scattered the flock (of Christ), but because, having scattered the flock, afterwards he himself gathered it.

5. What could be more surprising than that? The wolf became a shepherd; He who drank in the blood of the sheep began to shed his own blood for the salvation of the sheep! Do you want to know how he drank in the blood of sheep, how bloody his tongue was? "And Saul was still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1). But this one who breathes threat and murder, and sheds the blood of the saints, listen to how he shed his blood for the saints. "According to the reasoning of men," he says, "when I wrestled with the beasts at Ephesus" (1 Corinthians 15:32), and again, "I die every day" (v. 31), and again, "they reckoned us as sheep doomed to the slaughter" (Romans 8:36). And this was said by him who was present when Stephen's blood was shed, and who approved of his murder (Acts 7:58,8:1). Do you see how the wolf became a shepherd? So are you ashamed to hear that he (Apostle Paul) was formerly a persecutor, a blasphemer, and an offender (1 Timothy 1:13)? Do you see how the former guilt served to glorify him more? Did I not tell you in the preceding congregation that the miracles after the cross were greater than the miracles before the cross? Did He not prove to you, both by miracles and by goodness (εύνοιας) the disciples, how Christ formerly raised the dead by command, and afterwards the shadow of His servants did this? How then did He Himself work miracles with a word, and then His servants performed great miracles in His name? Have I not told you about the enemies (of Jesus Christ), how He frightened their consciences, how He subdued the whole world to Himself? How were the miracles after the cross greater than the miracles before the cross? – Today's word is akin to the word of that time. In fact, what miracle can be greater than the one that was performed on Paul? Peter denied the living Jesus, and Paul confessed the dead. And to attract and conquer Paul's soul was more than to raise the dead with a shadow. There nature obeyed, and did not contradict the commander, here it was necessary to subdue the free will, which has power and does not obey: therefore great is the power of Him who subdued. To change the will was much more important than to correct nature, therefore, the fact that Paul turned to Christ after the cross and the tomb was a miracle, more than all other miracles. For this reason Christ allowed him to show all enmity, and then called him in order to make undoubted the proof of the resurrection and the word of (Christian) teaching. Peter, for example, might have been suspected when he spoke of Christ, because some of the shameless people might have said something (against him). I said, "Of the shameless," because even there the proof was clear. And he (Peter) first denied Christ, and denied with an oath; but afterwards he confessed the same (Christ) and gave up his life for Him. And if Christ had not risen, then the one who denied the living would not have endured a thousand deaths in order not to renounce the dead. That is why Peter also presented a clear proof of the resurrection. However, the shameless could say that since he was a disciple (of Jesus Christ), had fellowship with Him at the table, and spent three years with Him, because he used His teaching, and, deceived by Him, fell into deception, he preached about His resurrection. But when you see that Paul, who did not see Christ, did not listen to Him, did not use His teaching, fought against Him even after the cross, put to death those who believe in Him, stirred up all things and threw things into disorder, (when you see that) he was suddenly changed, and by the labors of preaching surpassed all the friends of Christ, what excuse will you have for shamelessness, not believing the doctrine of the resurrection? If Christ had not risen, who would have attracted and brought to Himself such a cruel and inhuman, inflamed with enmity and enraged like a beast? Tell me, Jew, who made Paul turn to Christ? Peter? Jacob? John? But they all feared and trembled at him, and not only before his conversion, but also when he became one of the friends (of Christ), when Barnabas took him by the hand and brought him to Jerusalem, and then they were afraid to come to him; The war had already ceased, but fear was still on the apostles. And so, those who were still afraid of him, even when he had changed, dared to persuade him when he was an enemy and an adversary? Could they even draw near, or stand, or open their mouths, and even appear? No, no; This was not a matter of human effort, but of divine grace. If, then, Christ, as you say, was dead, and His disciples came and stole Him, how greater were the miracles after the cross? Which is the stronger proof of power? Christ not only changed his enemy and the supreme leader of your war, though if he had done this alone, it would have been the work of the greatest power to take the enemy and the enemy captive, but he has done not only this, but much more than this: he has not only changed (Paul), but has made him so close to himself, so disposed to love himself, that He entrusted to him even all the works of the Church: "a vessel," says the Lord, "to declare My name before nations and kings" (Acts 9:15), and forced him to labor more than the Apostles for the Church against which he had previously fought.

6. Do you want to know how (Christ) changed him, how He made him close, how He drew him to Himself, how He placed him among the first of His friends? He did not deign to reveal such secrets to any of the people as He did to Paul. Where does this come from? "I have heard," says Paul (of himself), "words that cannot be uttered to man" (2 Corinthians 9:4). Do you see what love the enemy has shown? Therefore, it is necessary to tell his former life: this will show us both love for mankind and the power of God, love for mankind, because God wanted to save and draw him to Himself who had done so much evil, and power, because, having willed, He was able. This will also show us the soul of Paul, i.e. that he did nothing out of stubbornness, or out of passion for human glory, as the Jews did, but (he did everything) out of zeal, of course, not right, but still out of zeal, about which he himself cried thus: "For this he was pardoned, because he did so in ignorance, in unbelief" (1 Timothy 1:13). And, marveling at God's love for mankind, he said: "For this reason have I also received mercy, that Jesus Christ may first show in me all patience, as an example to those who believe in Him unto eternal life" (v. 16). And in another place he again said that God "showed the greatness of His might" especially "in us who believe" (Ephesians 1:19). Do you see how Paul's former life showed both love for mankind, and the power of God, and the sincerity of Paul's own disposition? In his Epistle to the Galatians, he also cited this as proof that he was not changed for the sake of men, but that the power of God had converted him. "If I were to please men even now," he says, "I would not be a servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10). Whence then is it evident that thou hast received the preaching (of Christ) not out of pleasing men? "Ye have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God with cruelty, and devastated it" (v. 13). But he would not have turned to faith if he had wanted to please people. Why? He was revered by the Jews, enjoyed great peace, and enjoyed special respect; consequently, he would not have passed (from pleasing people) to the life of the apostles, covered with disgrace, full of misfortunes. Thus, this sudden abandonment of honor from the Jews and a quiet life, and the transition to the life of the apostles, associated with a thousand deaths, is the strongest proof that Paul was not converted by any human calculation. For this reason we also wanted to present his former life, and to show with what zeal he burned against the Church, so that when you see his great care for the Church, you would revere God, Who creates and transforms everything. That is why the disciple of Paul (the Evangelist Luke) accurately and very eloquently told us about his former (deeds) in the following words: "Saul, while still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord." I would like to begin today the introduction (to the life of Paul), I would like to begin the beginning of the story (about Paul), but I see in one name a sea of thoughts. Consider, indeed, what question this name Saul immediately gives rise to us. In the Epistles, I see, another name is used: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called Apostle" (Romans 1:1); "Paul, called by the will of God an Apostle of Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:1); "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you" (Galatians 5:2). Both here and everywhere he is called Paul, and not Saul. Why was he formerly called Saul, and afterwards called Paul? This is not an empty question: now Peter also appears, and he was formerly called Simon, and afterwards he was called Cephas; and the sons of Zebedee, James and John, were renamed sons of thunder (Mark 3:16,17). And not only in the new, but also in the Old Testament we find that Abraham was formerly called Abram, and then Abraham; Jacob was first called Jacob, and then Israel, and Sarah was formerly called Sarah, and then Sarah. In short, the change of names prompts us to greater research, and I am afraid lest, having sent forth many streams of rivers, I may drown the word of teaching. Just as in the damp earth, wherever you dig, springs run everywhere, so in the land of the Divine Scriptures, wherever you begin to dig, many rivers will flow out, and therefore it is very frightening to let all these rivers flow out of the blue. Therefore, having blocked our flow, I will send your love to the sacred source of these primates and teachers [2] – to this pure, intoxicating and sweet spring, which comes from the very spiritual stone [3]. Let us prepare our minds to receive the teaching, to drink ourselves with spiritual streams, so that the fountain of water flowing into eternal life may be opened in us, which we may all receive through the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom be glory, honor and dominion to the Father, with the holy and life-giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[1] By feast is meant all the time from the day of Pascha to the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit. Spirit.

[2] This refers to the bishops of Syria, who came to Antioch, the capital of Syria, either on diocesan business, or to listen to the famous preacher, St. Chrysostom.

[3] I.e., Christ, 1 Corinthians 10:4.

DISCOURSE II

to those who grumbled about the length of the sermons, and to those who were dissatisfied with their brevity; about the names of Saul and Paul, and about why the first man was called Adam – that this was useful and beneficial – and to the newly enlightened.

1. What should we do today? Seeing how many of you there are, I am afraid to spread the word, because when the teaching lasts longer, I see that you crowd together, crowd together, and the unpleasantness of the crowding prevents you from listening attentively, since the listener, having no space, cannot diligently listen to what is being said.

So, seeing that you are many, I, as I said, am afraid to spread the word. But, on the other hand, looking at your zeal, I am afraid to shorten the teaching, because he who is thirsty, if he does not see beforehand that the cup is full, will not willingly bring it to his lips; although he will not drink it all, he still wants to see it full. Therefore, I do not know what to do in (real) conversation. I would like to make your work easier with brevity of my word, and to satisfy your diligence with its vastness. But I have often done both, and I have never escaped censure. I know that often, sparing you, I stopped speaking before the end, and those who have an insatiable soul, who constantly delight in the divine streams and are never satisfied, those blessed ones who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt. 5:6), have raised up a murmur against me, and I, fearing their murmuring, again went on, continued the word, and for this I suffered reproach, because those who like short teachings, when they met (with me), they asked me to spare their infirmity and to shorten their words. And so, when I see that you are cramped, I hasten to finish my word; but when I notice that you, in spite of the crowding, do not retreat, but are disposed to go further, I want to give freedom to the language. "I am cramped on every side" (Dan. 13:22). What should I do? Whoever serves one master and is obliged to obey one will, can easily please the lord and not sin. And I have many gentlemen, and I am obliged to serve such a multitude of people, with such diverse demands. However, I did not say this because I was burdened by such slavery – let it not be! "And not because I wanted to be free from your dominion. For me there is nothing more honorable than this slavery: it is not so much the Tsar who admires the diadem and the purple, as I now flaunt the service of your love. That kingdom is followed by death, and to this ministry, if it is well performed, the kingdom of heaven is prepared. "Blessed is the faithful and discreet servant, whom his master has appointed over his servants to distribute to them in due time a measure of bread. Verily I say unto you, that he shall set it over all his possessions" (Matt. 24:45-47, Lk. 12:42). Do you see what is the fruit of this service, if it is (passed) diligently? It places (the slave) over all the master's possessions. So, I do not run away from the ministry, because I serve with Paul. And he says, "We do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; but we are your servants for Jesus" (2 Corinthians 4:5). And what can we say about Paul? If "I humbled myself, taking the form of a servant" for the sake of slaves (Phil. 2:7), then what is the importance if I, a slave, became a slave to my fellow servants (mine) for my own sake? Therefore I have said this, not because I wish to be freed from your dominion, but because I desire to receive (from you) forgiveness, if I offer a table that is not pleasing to all. Better yet, do what I say now. You, who can never be satisfied, but hunger and thirst for righteousness, and demand long words, be indulgent when, for the sake of the weakness of your brethren, the usual measure of instruction is shortened. But you, who love short words and are weak, endure, for the sake of your insatiable brethren, a little labor, bearing "one another's burdens, and thus you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2).

Do you not see how the wrestlers at the Olympic Games, at noon, stand in the middle of the theater in the arena, as in a furnace, and, like copper statues, perceive the sun's rays with their naked bodies, and struggle in the sun, in the heat, and in the dust, in order to crown their heads, which have endured so much, with laurel leaves? And for you, as a reward for your hearing, there is not a laurel wreath, but a crown of righteousness, and we do not keep you until noon, but, condescending to your infirmity, we let you go at the very beginning of the day, when the air is still cool and not hot with the fall of the sun's rays, we do not compel you to receive these rays on your naked head, but we bring you under this beautiful vault, and under the rooftop we bring you coolness, taking care of your comfort in every possible way, so that you can listen for a long time. Let us not be weaker than our children who go to school. They do not dare to return home before noon; having just left milk, just weaning, not yet five years of age, with a young and tender body, show perfect patience; although they are troubled by fever, or thirst, or whatever, they endure and endure until noon, sitting at school. Thus, if not someone else, then these children will be imitated by us, men who have reached full age. If we lack the patience to listen to the words about virtue, then who will believe us that we will take up the very labors of virtue? If we are so disposed to hear, how can it be seen that we will be zealous for the cause? If we renounce the easiest, how shall we endure the most difficult? However, the crowding is great, the crowd is great! But listen: those who bore themselves "rapture" the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 11:12), and "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life" (Matt. 7:14). Thus, when we walk the narrow and strait path, then we ourselves need to constrain and compel ourselves, so that we can walk the narrow and strait path. He who expands will not pass so easily along the narrow path as he who squeezes himself, burdens and constrains himself.

2. And the question today is not about unimportant things, but about such an investigation, which yesterday only began, but is not finished on the multitude of subjects that presented themselves. What is it? We began to discuss the change of names that God had given to the Saints. This subject seems unimportant at first sight, but if you delve into it carefully, it contains a great treasure. For even the gold-bearing earth in the mines is considered by inexperienced people and those who do not pay attention to it only as ordinary earth, which contains nothing more than any other earth, but those who examine it with an experienced eye understand the dignity of this land, and, throwing it into the fire, reveal all its superiority. So it is with regard to the divine Scriptures: those who read words without attention think that they are simple words and there is nothing special in them, but those who examine them with the eyes of faith, testing them with the fire of the spirit, as with the instruments of art, will easily see all the gold contained in them. How did that study begin? For it is not without reason that we have embarked on this consideration, lest anyone should reproach us with inconsistency; no, we wanted to tell about the deeds of Paul, on the occasion of the reading of the Acts of the Apostles, and we touched upon the beginning of this story. And the beginning of the narration was found as follows: "And Saul was still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1). You were immediately struck by the change of name, because in all the Epistles and in their introductions we find that he is not called Saul, but Paul; and this (the change of names) was not with him alone, but also with many others. And Peter was formerly called Simon, and the sons of Zebedee, James and John, were later renamed sons of thunder, and in the Old Testament, it is known, the same was with some. Thus Abraham, who was formerly called Abram, was afterwards called Abraham, and Sarah was formerly called Sarah, and afterwards was called Sarah, and Jacob was afterwards given the name of Israel. So it seemed unseemly to me to pass without paying attention to such a treasure of names. The same happens with secular leaders; and they use double names. See, for example: "to the place," it is said, by Felix Porcius Festus (Acts 24:27); and again: "with the proconsul Sergius Paul" (Acts 13:7); and the one who delivered Christ to the Jews was called Pontius Pilate. And not only commanders, but also warriors often have double names; And private people, for some reasons and circumstances, have double names. But as for them, it is of no use to us to inquire why they are so called; and when God gives a name, it is necessary to show all diligence in order to find the reason. God, as a rule, says nothing, or does nothing without reason and without intention, but everything (both says and does) with His proper wisdom. Why, then, was (Paul) called Saul when he persecuted (the church), and was renamed Paul when he believed? Some say that as long as he stirred up, stirred up, and disturbed all things, and agitated the church, he was called Saul, having a name after his own work, after the very thing that stirred up (σαλεύειν) the church, and when he left these furies, ceased to stir up, ceased the strife, and finished the persecution, he was renamed Paul because of this, that he ceased (άπό του παύσασθαι). But such an explanation is unfounded, and unjust, and I have put it forward only so that you may not be carried away by empty interpretations. First, this name (Saul) was given to him by his parents, who were not prophets and did not foresee the future. Then, if he had been called Saul because he agitated and disturbed the church, then he should have given up his name immediately after he had ceased to disturb the church; but now we see that he ceased to disturb the church, and did not leave his name, but was still called Saul. And lest you think that I am saying this to deceive you, I will tell you about it first. "Having brought Stephen," it is said, "they began to stone him. And the witnesses laid their garments at the feet of the young man, whose name was Saul" (Acts 7:58), and again: "And Saul approved of his slaying" (8:1), and in another place: "Saul tormented the church, entering into the houses, and dragging men and women" (8:3), and again: "Saul, while still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (9:1), and again: "He heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul! why persecute me?" (9:4). Thus, from now on, he should have given up his name, because he has ceased to persecute. Did he immediately lay it down? Nohow; and this is evident from what follows: "Saul arose from the ground, and saw no one with his eyes open" (9:8), and again: "And the Lord said to him (Ananias), 'Get up and go into the street, which is called the Straight Street, and ask in the house of Judah for a Tarsus named Saul' (9:11), and again: When Ananias came in, he said, 'Brother Saul! The Lord Jesus, who appeared to you in the way you walked, sent me that you might see" (9:17). Then he began to preach "and confounded the Jews" (9:22); however, even at this time he did not form a name, but was still called Saul: "Saul knew," says the Scriptures, "of this intention" of the Jews (9:24). And is it only here (it is called so)? No; but there was, it is said, a famine, and "then the disciples decided, each according to his wealth, to send an allowance to the brethren living in Judea, which they did, sending what they had gathered to the elders through Barnabas and Saul" (11:29-30). Now he serves the saints, and is also called Saul. And after that, Barnabas came to Antioch and "saw" there "the grace of God" and the multitude of believers who were there, "then Barnabas went to Tarsus to seek Saul" (11:23, 25). So he converts many, and is called Saul. And again: "In Antioch, in the church there, there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon, who is called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manael, the co-pupil of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul" (13:1). So he became both a teacher and a prophet, and was also called Saul. And again: "While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate for me Barnabas and Saul" (13:2),

3. So he is separated by the Spirit, but he does not yet form a name! Only when he came to Salamis, when he found the sorcerer, then Luke said of him, "Saul, he is also Paul,

being filled with the Holy Spirit" (13:9). This was the beginning of the renaming. Let's not get bored with this study of names. For in the affairs of life the search for names is very important: it often renews acquaintances after a long time, discovers forgotten kinships, settles legal disputes, puts an end to quarrels, extinguishes wars, and is the cause of reconciliation. If the discovery of names means so much in worldly affairs, how much more so in spiritual ones. However, first of all, it is necessary to delineate the issues themselves with precision. So, the question arises, first, why did God give names to some of the saints, and not to others? Indeed, both in the New and in the Old Testament, He Himself did not give names to all the saints. And what was in the new covenant is also in the old, so that you may know that there is one Lord of both covenants. Thus, in the New Testament, Christ called Simon Peter and the sons of Zebedee, James and John, the sons of thunder, and only them, and none of the other disciples, but left them with the same names that their parents had first given them. And in the Old Testament God renamed Abraham and Jacob, but (He did not rename) Joseph, or Samuel, or David, or Elijah, or Elisha, or other prophets, but left them with their former names. So the first question is why some of the saints were renamed, and others were not? The second after him is the one for which of these (renamed) some received a name in adulthood, and others first, and even before their birth? Christ renamed Peter, James and John in their mature age, and gave John the Baptist a name even before His birth: an angel of the Lord came and said: "Fear not, Zacharias, thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John" (Luke 1:13). Do you see the name (given) before birth? This was also in the Old Testament. As in the new Peter, James and John were renamed and began to be called by a double name in adulthood, and John the Baptist received the name before conception and birth, so in the old Abraham and Jacob were renamed in adulthood – because one was formerly called Abram, and then called Abraham, and the other was formerly called Jacob, then called Israel. But Isaac is no longer so, he receives his name before his birth; And as the angel there said, "Thy wife shall conceive in her womb, and bear a son," "and thou shalt call his name John," so here God said to Abraham: "Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name Isaac" (Gen. 17:19). So, the first question is: why are some renamed and others not? The second after him: why are some in adulthood, and others even before birth, and this in both covenants? We will turn first to the second, because in this way the first will also be clearer; let us look at those who received names first, and ascending little by little, let us come to the first man who received a name from God, so that the questions may be settled from the beginning. So, who was the first to be named by God? Who else but he who was created first, because there was no other man to whom a name could be given? What did he call it? In Hebrew, Adam. This name is not Greek, and translated into Greek it means nothing other than earthly. Eden means virgin land, and this was the country in which God planted paradise. "The Lord God planted," says the Scriptures, "a paradise in Eden in the east" (Gen. 2:8), so that you might know that paradise was not the work of human hands; the earth was virgin, did not receive the plough, was not furrowed, but, untouched by the hands of the farmers, by one command (of God) brought forth those trees. That is why (God) called it Eden, which means virgin land. This virgin was the image of another virgin. As this earth brought forth for us a paradise without receiving seeds, so that (the Virgin), not having received the seed of a man, brought forth Christ for us. And so, if a Jew asks you, How did the Virgin give birth? Say to him, "And how did the virgin earth bring forth those wonderful trees, for Eden in Hebrew means virgin land?" And if anyone does not believe, let him ask those who know the Hebrew language, and see that this is the meaning of the name Eden. Although I speak to those who do not know (the Hebrew language), I do not want to deceive you, but, trying to make you invincible, I explain everything to you with precision, as if there were opponents who know this. Thus, since man was created from the virgin earth of Eden, he was also called Adam after the name of his mother. People often do this, calling children born by the name of their mothers; so God also called man created from the earth, after the name of his mother, Adam: she is Eden; he is Adam.