Gilfillan quotes an English writer of the year 1584, John Stockwood, who says that there were then
“A great diversity of opinion among the vulgar people and simple sort, concerning the Sabbath day, and the right use of the same.”
And Gilfillan states one of the grounds of controversy thus:—
“Some maintaining the unchanged and unchangeable obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath.”[1052]
In 1607, an English first-day writer, John Sprint, gave the views of the Sabbath-keepers of that time, which in truth have been substantially the same in all ages:—
“They allege reasons drawn, 1. From the precedence of the Sabbath before the law, and before the fall; the laws of which nature are immutable. 2. From the perpetuity of the moral law. 3. And from the large extent thereof appertaining to [the Sabbath above] all [the other precepts.] 4. ... And of the cause of [this precept of] the law which maketh it perpetual, which is the memorial and meditation of the works of God; which belong unto the Christians as well as to the Jews.”[1053]
John Trask began to speak and write in favor of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, about the time that King James I., and the archbishop of Canterbury, published the famous “Book of Sports for Sunday,” in 1618. His field of labor was London, and being a very zealous man, he was soon called to account by the persecuting authority of the church of England. He took high ground as to the sufficiency of the Scriptures to direct in all religious services, and that the civil authorities ought not to constrain men’s consciences in matters of religion. He was brought before the infamous Star Chamber, where a long discussion was held respecting the Sabbath. It was on this occasion that Bishop Andrews first brought forward that now famous first-day argument, that the early martyrs were tested by the question, “Hast thou kept the Lord’s day?”[1054]
Gilfillan, quoting the words of cotemporary writers, says of Trask’s trial that,
“For ‘making of conventicles and factions, by that means which may tend to sedition and commotion, and for scandalizing the king, the bishops, and the clergy,’ ‘he was censured in the Star Chamber to be set upon the pillory at Westminster, and from thence to be whipt to the fleet, there to remain a prisoner.’”[1055]
This cruel sentence was carried into execution, and finally broke his spirit. After enduring the misery of his prison for one year, he recanted his doctrine.[1056] The case of his wife is worthy of particular mention. Pagitt gives her character thus: