Reformed theology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was far from univocal. Differences of theological opinion on a host of topics existed, ranging from the more rarefied (for example, the infralapsarian/supralapsarian debate) to those reaching into the everyday experiences of church members (for example, Sabbath observance). With regard to the latter, debates surrounding the Sabbath were about far more than pastoral and magisterial perplexities. As witnessed in the Dutch Reformed debate between Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) and Johannes Cocceius (1609–69), the heart of the theological controversy rested on the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, specifically what elements of the covenant of works had or had not been abrogated. These theological debates were contentious, often spilling over into the social and political realm. Such was the case, famously, when the strict Sabbatarianism of certain English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians led to the symbolic burning of the re-released ‘Book of Sports’ by members of the assembled and recalcitrant parliament in 1643. There was to be no frivolity – ‘games, Whitsun ales and morris dances’ – on the Sabbath Day. But how did such Sabbatarianism work itself out in the Dutch-speaking world?

This is the main concern of Dieleman's book, a revision of his doctoral thesis, wherein he charts the relationship between theological ideals and practices as it concerns Sabbath observance in the Low Countries in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In particular, Dieleman wants to contest the idea that the development of strict Sabbatarianism in Dutch Reformed theology (for example, in Wilhelmus à Brakel) followed simply as a result of English influence. Dieleman contends, in fact, that ecclesial records evidence how practical Sabbatarianism came to the fore quite early on in the Low Countries. Overall, his main argument rests on two claims: (1) Sabbath observance was a way for Dutch Reformed churches to maintain ecclesial and societal order; and (2) Sabbatarianism was a way to establish a distinctly Reformed identity in the pluralistic context of the Low Countries. Such might have been the expectation, but, as Dieleman further explains, ‘Sunday observance never followed the path religious authorities desired’ (p. 29). To substantiate this thesis, Dieleman explores Sabbath observance from ‘theological and lived angles’ (p. 30). Theologically, he attends to the idea of Sabbath as found in the thought of John Calvin (ch. i), Johannes a Lasco and Zacharias Ursinus (ch. ii), and Wilhelmus à Brakel (ch. iii). Dieleman then shifts from the world of ideas to on-the-ground instantiations of Sabbath-keeping as witnessed in the records of provincial synods (ch. iv), Dutch classes (ch. v), and, most microscopically, the consistory records of the city of Kampen from 1618 to 1649 (ch. vi). Positively, Dieleman brings to light the ‘lived’ discrepancy between the expectation of Sabbath observance by certain religious authorities (a precursor to a later and stricter Sabbatarianism perhaps?) and the actual observance of the laity. At various levels, the ecclesial records indicate a serious concern by clergy for Reformed piety and moral order to prevail in the Low Countries, even if the magistrates were reluctant – at the request of religious authorities at times – to take greater steps toward civil enforcement. This is especially true as it pertains to morning church attendance and afternoon catechism. Apparently, ‘clay pigeon shooting’ was a popular activity during preaching and a complaint found among more than one classis (p. 179). Dieleman's overall social history provides instructive insights into the complexities of theology and practice within the early modern and Reformed world. This is certainly welcome. On the other hand, Dieleman's thesis proves somewhat unconvincing (or, at least, underdeveloped) when it comes to the full theological discrepancy at play. Further attention to Dutch theologians and universities and their influence on clergy/congregants would be helpful, if only to further contextually validate his concern for the particularities of the Dutch Reformation. Why spend an extended time with Ursinus and not theologians at Leiden? Is it simply an amusing anecdote that ladies following the school of Cocceius would sit knitting in their windows on the Sabbath to the dismay of their Voetian neighbors (p. 111)? It seems they had a theological agenda and not simply a spiteful one, even if it was that too.