14. All the eastern nations also, amongst whom the planetary de- nomination of the days of the week first began, have, since their cast- ing off that kind of idolatry, rejected the use of those names; being therein more religious, or more superstitious, than the most of Chris- tians. So is it done by the Arabians and Persians, and those that are joined unto them in religious observances. The day of their worship, which is our Friday, the Arabians call “ Giuma,” the Per-
_sians “ Adina.” The rest of the days of the week they discriminate
by their natural order within their hebdomadal revolution,—the first, the second, the third, etc. ; only some of them in some places have some
284 OF THE NAME OF [ EXERC. L
special name occasionally imposed on them. The church of Rome, from a decree, as they suppose or pretend, of Pope Sylvester, reckons all the days of the week by “ Feria prima, secunda,” and so onwards; only their writers for the most part retain the name of “sabbatum,” and use “ dies dominica” for the first day. And the Rhemists, on Rey. i. 10, condemn the name of Sunday as heathenish. And Poly- dore Virgil before them says, “ Profecto pudendum est, simulque dolendum, quod non antehac data sunt istis diebus Christiana no- mina; ne dii gentium tam memorabile, inter nos, monumentum haberent,” De Invent. Rer. lib. vi cap. v. And indeed, among sundry of the ancients, there do many severe expressions occur against the use of the common planetary names. And at the first relinquish- ment of Gentilism, it had no doubt been well if those names of Baalim had been taken away out of the mouths of men, especially considering that the retaining of them hath been of no use nor advantage. As they are now rivetted into custom and usage, claiming their station on such a prescription as in some measure takes away the corruption of their use, I judge that they are not to be contended about; for as they are vulgarly used, these names are mere notes of distinction, of no more signification than first, second, and third, the original and occasioned imposition of them being amongst the many utterly unknown. Only I must add, that the severe reflections and contemptuous reproaches which I have heard made upon and poured out against them who, it may be out of weakness, it may be out of a better judgment than our own, do abstain from the using of them, argue a want of due charity and that condescension in love which become those who judge themselves strong; for the truth is, they have a plea sufficient at least to vindicate them from the contempt of any. For there are some places of Scripture which seem so far to give countenance unto them, that if they mistake in their applica- tion, it is a mistake of no other nature but what others are liable unto in things of greater importance; for it is given as the will of God, Exod. xxiii. 13, “ In all things,” saith he, “that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.” And it cannot be denied but that the names of the days of the week were the names of gods among the heathen. The prohibition is renewed, Joshua xxi. 7, “ Neither make mention of the name of their gods :” which is yet extended further, Deut. xii. 3, to a command “to de- stroy and blot out the names of the gods of the people;” which by this means are retained. Accordingly, the children of Reuben, build- ing the cities formerly called Nebo and Baal-meon, changed their names, because they were the names of heathen idols, Num. xxxii. 38. And David mentioneth it as a part of his integrity, that he
SECT. 15.] - A DAY OF SACRED REST. 285
would not take up the names of idols into his lips, Ps. xvi. 4. And some of the ancients, as hath been observed, confirm what by some at present is concluded from these places. Saith Jerome, “ Absit ab ore Christiano dicere, Jupiter omnipotens, Mehercule, et Mecas- tor, et cetera magis portenta quam nomina,” Epist.ad Damas. Now, be it granted that the objections against the use of the planetary names of the days of the week from these places may be answered from consideration of the change of times and the circumstances of things, yet certainly there is an appearance of warranty in them sufficient to secure them from contempt and reproach who are pre- vailed on by them to another use. 15. But of a day of rest there is a peculiar reason. If there be a name given in the Scripture unto such a day, by that name it is to be called, and not otherwise. So it was unquestionably under the old testament. God himself had assigned a name unto the day of sacred rest then enjoined the church unto observation, and it was not lawful for the Jews to callit by any other name given unto it or in use among the heathen. It was and was to be called “the Sabbath day,” “the Sabbath of the Lorp.” In the new testament there is, as we shall see afterwards, a signal note put on “ the first day of the week.” So thence do some call their day of rest or solemn worship, and contend that so it ought to be called. But this only respects the order and relation of such a day to the other days of the week, which is natural, and hath no respect unto any thing that is sacred. It may be allowed, then, for the indigitation of such a day, and the discrimination of it from the other days of the week, but it is no proper name for a day of sacred rest. And the first use of it, upon the resurrection of our Lord, was only peculiarly to denote the time. There is a day mentioned by John, in the Revelation, (which we shall afterwards consider,) that he calleth jutpay xupiaxzy, “diem dominicam,” “the Lord’s day.” This appellation, what day soever is designed, is neither natural nor civil, nor doth it relate unto any thing in nature or in the common usage of men. It must therefore be sacred; and it is, or may be, very comprehensive of vari- ous respects. It is “the Lord’s day,” the day that he hath taken to be his lot or especial portion among the days of the week ; as he took, as it were, possession of it in his resurrection. So his people are his lot and portion in the world, therefore called his people. It is also, or may be, his day subjectively, or the day whereon his businesses and affairs are principally transacted. So the poet, Statius, Theb. viii. 664,— ‘‘ Tydeos illa dies;’’ _ that was Tydeus’ day, because he was principally concerned in the affairs of it. This is the day wherein the affairs of the Lord Jesus _ Christ are transacted, his person and mediation being the principal