After this he continues: “These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that
there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the
Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they
delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that.” And in a
subsequent part of his work he says, that “It makes no difference
whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus,
which is current among the Greeks, or by that, _e.g._, which is in use
among the Indians or Egyptians.” Now, in answer to this, we have to
remark that this involves a deep and mysterious subject—that, viz.,
respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as
Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics
hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably
to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they
introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus
teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by
nature,—the first men having uttered certain words varying with the
circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall be able
to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature of
powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the
Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian
philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanæans, and others in
different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called
magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an
altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a
consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few; then
we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated
with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any
ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to
the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced with
that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their
nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in
the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only
do certain things; and other names in the Persian language have
corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every individual
nation, for different purposes. And thus it will be found that, of the
various demons upon the earth, to whom different localities have been
assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the several dialects of
place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small,
of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing names to
different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly apply the
name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of “the Good”
from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to
blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh
and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth.[1165]
Footnote 1165:
Ἐπὶ τὸν τυφλὸν πλοῦτον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν σαρκῶν καὶ αἱμάτων καὶ ὀστέων
συμμετρίαν ἐν ὑγείᾳ καὶ εὐεξίᾳ, ἤ τὴν νομιζομένην εὐγένειαν.