Primarily, a name supposed some correspondence between its meaning and the
person who bore it. Hence the name should not be arbitrary in its
application, but should "link its fitness to idea," and with the person,
run in parallel courses.
"For mind is apt and quick to wed ideas and names together,
Nor stoppeth its perceptions to be curious of priorities."
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, felt that practically there was much in a
name, when he heathenized the names of the young Hebrew captives. By this
he thought to detach them from their Hebrew associations. God was in each
of their original names, and in this way they were reminded of their
religion. But the names this Chaldee king gave them were either social or
alluded to the idolatry of Babylon. Their Hebrew names were to them
witnesses for God, mementoes of the faith of their fathers; hence the king,
to destroy their influence, called Daniel, Belteshazzar, i.e. "the
treasurer of the god Bel;" Hannaniah he called Shadrach, i.e. "the
messenger of the king;" Mishael he called Meshach, i.e. "the devotee of the
goddess Shesach." He showed his cunning in this, and a historical testimony
to the potent influence of a name.
By this same rule of correspondence, Adam doubtless named, by order of his
Creator, the things of nature as they struck his senses.
"He specified the partridge by her cry, and the forest prowler by
his roving,
The tree by its use, and the flower by its beauty, and everything
according to its truth.
Pages:
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133