This is a very thorough re-working of the debate about the controversial Book of Sports first issued in the reign of James i and then reissued by his son Charles i in 1633. Alistair Dougall provides a good background to medieval thinking about the Lord's Day, notes the impact of the break with Rome, the battles over its observance that emerged in the reign of Elizabeth, and the subsequent controversies over the ‘dancing book’ that enveloped the reigns of both James i and Charles i. While much has been blamed on the Laudians in recent accounts of what brought Britain to civil war, Alistair Dougall returns to older interpretations associated with the likes of Christopher Hill in blaming radical Protestants for creating trouble over sabbatarianism. Moreover, he sets the debates in context regarding cultural divisions over traditional revelry that in turn made the issue even more divisive. While Elizabeth had successfully kept the lid on these debates, James intervened with his declaration, but did little to enforce his orders. And there is little evidence that any of his bishops were spoiling for a fight on the matter. It was Charles who made the fatal mistake of reissuing instructions and then attempting to enforce them. And the blame is laid firmly on the king rather than Archbishop Laud, as has again been the common story. Dougall illustrates how enforcement was patchy even in the 1630s, with Bishops Wren and Piers in the vanguard of tough practice, noting that Laud and others were more ambiguous in their instructions. This would certainly apply to Laud's right-hand man in the northern province, Archbishop Neile. This is a strong account that weaves a complex story through theological minefields, shifting politics associated with the first Stuart kings, and embeds all in important cultural dimensions that ensured that the issues were exacerbated. This may not be the end of the debate, but a good case has been made for reopening discussions about the general culpability of radical Puritans for the origins of the civil war.