(2. Time of the Reformation.)

Melancthon, also, says:—"The Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath, since it teaches that after the revelation of the Gospel all the Mosaic ceremonies may be neglected."

And so Calvin.—"In this way we get rid of the trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment, while the moral part remains, viz., the observance of one day in seven." We also read of Calvin, that,—"on one occasion when good John Knox paid him a visit on Sunday afternoon, he found the holy man enjoying a game at bowls."

And the Homily of the Church of England, "on the place and time of prayer," contains these words:—

"Albeit this commandment of God doth not bind Christian people so straitly to observe and keep the utter ceremonies of the Sabbath-day, as it was given to the Jews, as touching the forbearing of work and labor in time of great necessity, and as touching the precise keeping of the seventh day, after the manner of the Jews. — — — — Yet, notwithstanding, whatsover is found in the commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature, as a thing most godly, most just, and needful for the setting forth of God's glory, it ought to be retained and kept of all good Christian people."

Mr Sidey, in his published sermon (already referred to), says:—"The right keeping of the Sabbath has always been a distasteful thing to men of a despotic spirit, and many have been the expedients to which they have resorted to prevent it. In no one of these have they shewn greater skill to hinder liberty and intelligence, and those conditions of society which tended to conscientiousness, than in the conversion of the Sabbath into a day of pastime. Charles I. proclaimed the "Book of Sports" to reconcile the English people to their distresses. (Sic!) By this they were required to spend the large part of the day in amusements, and those who complied with the edict were specially rewarded for so doing, while those who refused were subjected to pains and penalties. In this work he was powerfully helped by Laud, if he was not directed to it by this prelate, for reasons page 21 of a kindred character." (I have quoted this at full length, as I intend to cut it up, to shew how easily things are twisted to suit purposes!)

On the foregoing statements of Mr Sidey I would remark,—(1) That Mr Sidey is a wee bit wrong in his English History (both civil and ecclesiastical), as well as in his Chronology; and (2) also, in several of his severe and unfounded charges; and (3) as a matter of course in his conclusions therefrom.

(1) For it was not King Charles I. who issued and proclaimed "the Book of Sports,"—but his father, King James I., a Scotsman, and a countryman of Mr Sidey's!—who issued it in 1618; at which time Laud was quietly and unobtrusively living at his college, St. John's, Oxford; and had nothing to do with it. Moreover, it should not be overlooked, that James himself, a Presbyterian, when King of Scotland, (only a few years before,) actually wrote a letter to Queen Elizabeth in behalf of two Presbyterian English ministers, whom he considered rather hardly treated.

(2) And what does King James say?—"For his good people's lawful recreation, his pleasure was, that, after the end of Divine Service, they should not be disturbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawful recreations; such as dancing either of men or women; archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any such harmless recreations; nor from having of May-games, Whitsunales, or Morris-dances, and setting up of Maypoles, or other sports therewith used, so as the same be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or let of Divine Service; and that women should have leave to carry rushes to the church for the decoring of it, according to their old custom; withal prohibiting all unlawful games to be used on the Sundays only, as bear-baiting, bull-baiting, interludes, and bowling."—

Now I cannot understand why Mr Sidey should say—"the English people were required to spend the large part of the day in amusement;" there is nothing of the kind in the King's injunction.

Again: Mr Sidey says, "those who complied were rewarded, those who refused, suffered":—that, however, does not appear from the State paper: and I also find, from Church History, that while there was more or less of arguments for and against, and many fears among the ministers of that period, as to their being obliged to read the said Royal Declaration in their several churches,—"That, after so long and so much talking, — — —their own fear proved at last their only foe; the King's goodness taking away the subject of their jealousy: so that no minister was enjoined to read the book in his parish, wherewith they had so affrighted themselves."

(3) Further,—I cannot conceive how Mr Sidey could have written, that such a declaration on the part of the King, was done "to hinder liberty and intelligence:" for, it seems to me, viewing English society as it was then, to be wholly and altogether the other way!

Let us just briefly see what the Historian says about it; how was that peculiar edict brought about; how came it to pass?

In 1616, King James visited his native country Scotland. And the quaint old Church Historian Fuller, (no friend of the High-Church, or Laudian, party,) writes:—"King James, having, last year, in his progress passed through Lancashire, took notice, that by the precisen ess of some magistrates and ministers, in several places of his kingdom, in hindering people from their recreations on the Sunday, the papists in this realm being thereby persuaded that no honest mirth or recreation was tolerable in our religion. Whereupon, May 14th, the Court being then at Greenwich, he set forth his Declaration" (given above). And then,—after noticing several arguments in use, both for and against it,—he goes on to say:—"However, there wanted not many, both in Lancashire and elsewhere who conceived the Declaration came forth seasonably, to suppress the dangerous endeavour of such who now began in their pulpits to broach the dregs of Judaism, and force Christians to drink them. So that those legal ceremonies, long since dead, buried, and rotten in the grave of our Saviour, had page 22 now their ghosts, as it were, walking; frighting such people with their terrible apparitions, who were persuaded by some preachers to so rigorous observation of the Sabbath, that therein it was unlawful to dress meat, sweep their houses, kindle their fires, or the like. Yea, and in Lancashire especially the Romanists made advantage of this strictness to pervert many to popery, persuading them, that the Protestant religion was one where no lawful liberty was allowed. And no wonder if many common people were hereby fetched off unto them; 'starting aside as a broken bow,' chiefly because overbent for lack of lawful recreation."—So, we may perceive, that the Judaizing Sabbatarians and precisians were really the cause of all this!

Fifteen years after, viz., A.D. 1633—King Charles was obliged to republish his Father's Declaration; but on this second occasion (Laud being now Archbishop), our Historian says,—"there was no express mention in this Declaration that the Minister of the Parish should be pressed to the publishing of it—which, however, was in that of King James. As before, so now: the Sabbatarian sect being the sole cause of it (as may be read at large in Church History). Our Historian says:—"Now (A.D. 1633) the Sabbatarian controversy began to be revived, which broke forth into a long and hot contention. Bradborn, a minister of Suffolk, began it, setting forth a book entitled, 'A Defence of the Sabbath-day maintaining therein, l. The 4th Commandment simply and entirely moral. 2. Christians, as well as Jews, obliged to the everlasting observation of that day. 3. That the Lord's day is an ordinary working-day. The Bishop of Ely was employed by his Majesty to confute Mr Bradborn's erroneous opinion.—And Mr Bradborn, perceiving the unsoundness of his own principles, became a convert, conforming him self quietly to the Church of England."

Just in this juncture of time (A.D. 1634) a Declaration for Sports, set forth the fifteenth of King James, was revived and enlarged. "For, his Majesty, being troubled with Petitions on both sides, thought good to follow his father's royal example.— — — — —It was charged on the Archbishop of Canterbury (Laud), at his trial, that he had caused the reviving and enlarging of this Declaration. He denied it, yet professing his judgment for recreations on that day, alleging the practice of the Church at Geneva allowing shooting in longbows, &c., thereon; adding also, that, though indulging liberty to others, in his own person he strictly observed that day." It further appears, "that the Church of Geneva went about to remove the observance of the Sabbath to Thursday; but, it seems, it was carried in the negative."

This "Declaration," or "Book of Sports," (on which, owing to Mr Sidey, I have been obliged to dwell,) must not for a moment be judged of by us, or compared with our manners and customs in the present day; save as to its principles: these are sound. We have seen that Calvin himself played at bowls for recreation on "the Sabbath;" and that the Church at Geneva (John Knox's own) allowed of archery, etc.—

I perfectly understand Mr Sidey's last words (quoted by me),—but as they have a meaning somewhat foreign to my subject, I let them pass.