to mention the very names of those who have aggrieved them. Saul, for instance, though he had sustained no injury from David, but had wronged him exceedingly, since he abhorred and hated him, could not endure to mention his proper name; but when all were seated to- gether, not seeing David to be present, what said he? He said not, “Where is David? but, ‘Where is the son of Jesse?’”1353 calling him by his father’s name. And again, the Jews did the same with respect to Christ, for since they abhorred and hated Him, they did not say, “Where is Christ?”1354 but, “Where is that man?”1355 7. But God, willing to show even by this that sin had not quenched His tenderness, nor disobedience taken away His favor toward him, and that He still exercised His Providence and care for the fallen one, said, “Adam, where art thou?”1356 not being ignorant of the place where he was, but because the mouth of those who have sinned is closed up; sin turning the tongue backward, and conscience taking hold of it; so that such persons remain speechless, held fast in silence as by a kind of chain. And God wishing therefore to invite him to freedom of utterance, and to give him confidence, and to lead him to make an apology for his offences, in order that he might obtain some forgiveness, was Himself the first to call; cutting off much of Adam’s distress by the familiar appellation, and dispelling his fear, and opening by this address the mouth that was shut. Hence also it was that he said, “Adam, where art thou?” “I left thee,” saith he, “in one situation, and I find thee in another. I left thee in confidence and glory; and I now find thee in disgrace and silence!” And observe the care of God in this instance. He called not Eve;—He called not the serpent,—but him who had sinned in the lightest degree of all, he brings first to the tribunal, in order that beginning from him who was able to find some degree of excuse, He might pass a more merciful sen- tence, even against her who had sinned the most. And judges, indeed, do not deign to make inquiry in their own person of their fellow-servants, and those who are partakers of a common nature with them, but putting forward some one of their attendants to intervene, they instruct him to convey their own questions to the criminal; and through him they say and hear whatever they wish, when they examine the offenders.1357 But God had no need of a go- between in dealing with man; but Himself in His own person at once judges and consoles 1353 1 Kings xx. 27. 1354 From this peculiar illustration it would seem, that St. Chrysostom supposed the term Christ to have been one of the familiar names by which our Saviour was known. But the term Jesus of Nazareth seems to have been His more general and distinctive appellation; though it by no means follows that He was not as familiarly known by the title of Christ among His followers, and addressed as such, especially after Peter’s confession. (See John iv. 22; Matt. xxvii. 17, contrasted with verse 63.) 1355 John vii. 11. 1356 Gen. iii. 9, LXX. 1357 What it was to be brought to the bar in those days may be seen in Hom. XIII. 562 Homily VII