Cartwright, the great Puritan, attacked these names in 1575, as “savouring of paganism” (Neal, v. p. xv. Appendix). It was a pity he did not include some names in the list of his co-religionists, for surely Tamar and Dinah were just as objectionable as Venus or Lais. The doctrine of a fallen nature could be upheld, and the blessed state of self-abasement maintained, without a daily reminder in the shape of a Bible name of evil repute. Bishop Corbett brought it as a distinct charge against the Puritans, that they loved to select the most unsavoury stories of Old Testament history for their converse. In the “Maypole” he makes a zealot minister say—
“To challenge liberty and recreation,
Let it be done in holy contemplation.
Brothers and sisters in the fields may walk,
Beginning of the Holy Word to talk:
Of David and Uria’s lovely wife,
Of Tamar and her lustful brother’s strife.”
One thing is certain, these names became popular:
“1610, March. Baptized Bathsheba, d. of John Hamond, of Ratcliffe.”—Stepney.
“1672, Feb. 23. Buried Bathsheba, wife of Richard Brinley, hosier.”—St. Denis Backchurch.
The alternate form of Bath-shua (1 Chron. iii. 5) was used, although the clerks did not always know how to spell it:
“1609, July 1. Baptized Bathshira and Tabitha, daughters of Sir Antonie Dering, Knight.
“1609, July 5. Buried Bathshira and Tabitha, ds. of Sir Antonie Dering, Knight, being twines.”—Pluckley, Kent.
“1601, Jan. Baptized Thamar, d. of Henry Reynold.”—Stepney.
“1691, Nov. 20. Baptized Tamar, d. of Francis and Tamar Lee.”—St. Dionis Backchurch.