By John G.
Reisinger
John Reisinger's Web Site 'Sound
of Grace'
On several occasions I have noted that John Bunyan was my mentor in understanding the relationship of law and grace. This is not at all to suggest that Bunyan believed everything I believe or visa versa. I merely mean that the basic presuppositions that I hold about law and grace, especially in the area of law and the Christian conscience, were obtained from Bunyan's writings. Bunyan also helped me greatly to understand the Sabbath. He wrote a treatise entitled "Questions About the Nature and Perpetuity of the Seventh day Sabbath" that was especially helpful to me. In this work, he had a two fold goal. One was to prove that the fourth commandment was not made known until Exodus 20 and therefore that commandment could not possibly be what it is today termed a "Creation Ordinance." The second goal was to prove that the "first day of the week is the true Christian Sabbath." It is obvious, to anyone familiar with the problems connected with the fourth commandment issue that Bunyan seems to both agree and disagree with both sides. On the one hand he appears to be a full blown sabbatarian, but at the same time, he is taking the foundation out from under that very position.
The Editor's Advertisement (by the publisher) in the front of almost every Bunyan work is very helpful. It tells us when Bunyan wrote that particular work; it also tells us what occasioned him to write it; and lastly, it usually gives a short outline of the material covered. In Bunyan's work on the Sabbath the editor states that Bunyan's chief concern was to see "the day in which our Lord rose from the dead much set by of Christians" (Vol II, p. 361 of the Baker Edition of Bunyan's Works). There is no doubt that Bunyan's real goal was to establish the believer's obligation to keep the "Christian Sabbath." The question is, does Bunyan himself destroy the only foundation upon which a sabbath day of any kind can be brought over into the church?
This book about the Sabbath was written in 1685. Nineteen years earlier (1666), Bunyan wrote a lengthy work entitled "The Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded." Bunyan's view of the Sabbath changed in the time between the writing of these two books.
In his 1666 work on law and grace, Bunyan's view of the Ten Commandments is almost identical to the classical covenant theology of the Puritans. He clearly believed that (1) The Ten Commandments were given to Adam and all his posterity, and (2) that men, prior to Exodus 20, were punished for breaking all ten of the commandments. He includes on the list the fourth commandment concerning the seventh-day sabbath:
And we find the Lord rebuking his people for the breach of the fourth commandment in Ex 16:27-29. Ibid, Vol, p.499.
However, in his treatise on the sabbath eighteen years later, Bunyan uses this same passage in Exodus 16 to prove that this was new revelation hitherto unknown by Israel or anyone else prior to that time. In this later work Bunyan argues effectively that the sabbath commandment was not given to Adam or anyone else before Exodus. The editor's advertisement explains why Bunyan wrote on the subject of the Sabbath and gives us a basic outline. He first raises the question of whether the Sabbath commandment is moral and eternal. He emphasizes that the answers to that and all other questions must be "strictly confined to revelation [Scripture], for there is no indication in nature, or in any of its laws, of a day of rest." Ibid, Vol II, p. 359.
In other words there is not a stitch of evidence in creation or in man's conscience that we should keep a weekly Sabbath. Such an idea is only known by a specific commandment from God, and Bunyan insists that God never gave such a commandment until Exodus 16.
The editor then shows that a weekly Sabbath cannot be part of an eternal moral law for the following reason:
Our Lord taught us that 'the Sabbath was made for man,' and therefore did not exist among angels, prior to the creation of man, as all moral or universal obligations must have existed. Ibid, p.360.
He is asking, "How can a weekly Sabbath reveal 'the moral character of God' if there is no weekly Sabbath observed in heaven by angels?" The advertisement then gives a short history of the debate on the Sabbath at the time of the Reformation:
The controversy upon this subject assumed a more public and definite form at the Reformation. Sir Thomas More asserted that the seventh day was superseded by the first, in obedience to tradition: it forms the first of the five commandments of Holy Church- " The Sundays hear thou mass." William Tyndale, in reply, contends that "we be lords over the Sabbath; we may change it for Monday or any other day, as we see need, or have tow every week, if one is not enough to teach the people." Calvin preferred a daily assembling of the church, but if that was impossible, then at stated intervals; his words are-- "since the Sabbath is abrogate, I do not so rest upon the number seven, that I would bind the churches to the bondage thereof; neither will I condemn those churches that have other solemn days for their meetings." Luther considers the observance of the Jewish Sabbath one of the "weak and beggarly rudiments." Ibid, 359,60.
The editor then gives the gist of the treatise. All of the emphases in the following quotation is by Bunyan's publisher:
Bunyan's arguments are, that the appearances of nature show no difference of days- that no Sabbath or other day was set apart for worship before the giving of the law at Sinai. "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and madest KNOWN unto them thy holy Sabbath, by the hand of Moses." Neh 9:13,14. " The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work-and remember thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm, THEREFORE the Lord commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." Deut.5:14,15.
While many crimes are mentioned in patriarchal times, there is no complaint of Sabbath-breaking. We read of fratricide, drunkenness, lying, unbelief, theft, idolatry, slave-dealing, and other crimes, but no hint as to sanctifying or desecrating the Sabbath. At length, a few days before the giving of the law, a natural phenomenon announced to the Jews the great change that was at hand - the manna fell in double quantity on Friday, and none was found of Saturday. So new was this that, contrary to the command, the people went on the seventh day as on other days, and were rebuked but not punished for it. But no sooner is the Sabbath instituted by Moses, than it is broken, and the Sabbath - breaker is punished with a cruel death.
The Sabbath was instituted as a peculiar observation to distinguish the Jews from all other nations - "The Lord has given YOU the Sabbath." Ex 16:39. "The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath." Ex 31:16,17. I gave them (the Israelites who were delivered from Egypt) my Sabbaths to be a sign between me and them." Ezek 20:12 Ceremonies were commanded on the Sabbath worship, which cannot now be observed, see Lev 24. Num 28. Neh 13:22. Ezek 46:4. The Jewish Sabbath was " a shadow of the things to come, but the body is of Christ." Col 2:16,17. The shadows have fled away; we possess the substance. The covenant of Moses was written on stone - the new covenant is written on our hearts, Heb 8:9,10. Ibid, p.360.
The editor then shows that Bunyan was thoroughly convinced that God had changed the day of worship from the seventh day, as first commanded at Sinai, to the first day of the week for the Christian church. He will refer to this new day as the "Christian Sabbath." It is essential to see that Bunyan accepts without question the idea that the fourth commandment, with the day changed to Sunday, is binding on Christians. He would disagree with our position at this point. However, it is just as clear that for Bunyan the "seventh day commandment" is (1) the fourth commandment itself given in Exodus 20, and (2) that this commandment was not given to Adam or anyone else before Exodus 16. No Covenant Theologian could possibly agree with Bunyan at this point. Bunyan's arguments demolish the "Creation Ordinance" concept which is essential to Covenant Theology. I totally agree with Bunyan on this point.
Bunyan himself has a short introduction entitled "To the Reader." He states what he intends to prove. Here is part of his introduction:
I have here, by handling four questions, proved that the seventh day sabbath, was not moral. Ibid, p.361
Now it is essential that we understand that Bunyan is not saying that nature does not teach a man that he should worship God. Nor is he saying that there should not be a day appointed for holy worship. He is saying that (1) no particular day of worship was ever commanded by God before Exodus 16, and (2) that the commandment to worship on the seventh day is not a "moral" commandment. Bunyan clearly states that the Ten Commandments contain moral law but he will insist that are not the "unchanging moral law" of God.
Bunyan can be very easily misread. No side of the Sabbath issue can honestly claim Bunyan as "their man." He simply does not fit any place. In the first section of hi Sabbath treatise, Bunyan destroys the very foundation of covenant theology's view of law. His basic view of the nature and origin of the Sabbath commandment is exactly what I believe. In the next section he makes a 180 degree turn and lays out covenant theology's doctrine of the "Christian" Sabbath. I personally think Bunyan's "whole" position is totally untenable. He sets forth two contradictory positions. I believe he contradicts himself simply because he does not work out in detail the clear implications of the presuppositions that he so carefully proved in the beginning. His treatise is a half and half mixture that does not fit together. My covenant theology friends agree with my assessment. We merely disagree on which half Bunyan was right and which half he was wrong!
We must remember why Bunyan wrote this particular treatise. He was fighting seventh day Baptist. He was writing against people who believed the same theology as the modern Seventh Day Adventist. Bunyan clearly saw that there was no Biblical answer to the seventh day people if the fourth commandment could be pushed back to creation. The phrase "Creation Ordinance" was not yet in vogue but that concept is precisely what Bunyan was talking about. He was arguing that God did not appoint any day of worship for Adam, or for anyone else, prior to Mount Sinai. Neither the seventh day, or the first day, or another day, or even one day in seven, is in any sense holy in and of itself. All God did in Genesis was reserve a day for Himself and then much later, at Sinai, God gave Israel His day as the sign of the covenant that He made with them at that time. This is Bunyan's view.
Walter Chantry in his book God's Righteous Kingdom has seen the clear implications of Bunyan's attack on the Sabbath as a Creation Ordinance. He says:
John Bunyan wrote against seventh-day Christians, giving much attention to what he considered the ceremonial element in the fourth commandment. It would be difficult to endorse all of his specific arguments in this article. Some of the same propositions used to assault the seventh-day sabbath would (if allowed to stand) bear equal weight against any sabbath whatever. From: God's Righteous Kingdom, Walter Chantry, p.138.
That is quite an admission by Chantry. He acknowledges that some of Bunyan's propositions could, "if allowed to stand," destroy his own Sabbath position. I agree with him. That is precisely what Bunyan's arguments do. That is why it surprises me that Chantry left every one of Bunyan's arguments stand unanswered! Nor did Chantry refer his readers to another writer who had answered Bunyan. Quite frankly, Chantry is the first writer I ever read that even acknowledged or admitted that Bunyan had even written on the Sabbath issue, let alone try to refute the arguments. If Bunyan's clear arguments have ever been answered, I would love to know by whom it was done and where such an accomplishment is available. Bunyan's editor said:
Bunyan's book does not appear to have been answered; indeed it would require genius of no ordinary kind to controvert such conclusive evidence. Ibid, p.360.
I agree! I think this explains why Bunyan's arguments have been "left stand" and have never been answered.
Here are the four questions that Bunyan deals with in "proving that the seventh day sabbath was not moral."
Question I. Whether the seventh day sabbath is of, or made known to, man by the law and light of nature?
Bunyan gives four arguments to prove the answer is no. Neither natural revelation nor conscience teaches anyone that there is any kind of a Sabbath.
Question II. Whether the seventh day sabbath, as to man's keeping of it holy, was ever made known to, or imposed by, a positive precept upon him until the time of Moses? Which from Adam was about two thousand years.
Bunyan then gives five proofs that the answer is no. If the identical question were asked today it would read, "Was the Sabbath commandment a Creation Ordinance given to Adam or was it first made known to Israel at Sinai?" This is the key point in the whole argument. Covenant Theology's whole theology of law hangs on the answer to this one question.
Question III. Whether when the seventh day sabbath was given to Israel in the wilderness the Gentiles, as such, were concerned therein.
Bunyan again uses five arguments to prove that the Gentiles were not given the sabbath commandment
Question IV. Whether the seventh day sabbath did not fall, as such, with the rest of the Jewish rites and ceremonies? Or whether that day, as a sabbath, was afterwards by the Apostles imposed upon the churches of the Gentiles?
Bunyan has eight arguments with many sub points proving (1) that the seventh day Sabbath did indeed cease with Christ, and (2) that the Gentiles never were put under "that day, as a sabbath." (At this point I believe it would be both legitimate and essential to ask Bunyan on what grounds the Gentile Christians could be put under the so-called Christian Sabbath? Either the first part of his thesis is wrong and should be discredited or else his arguments in that section are valid and thus destroys the necessary foundation for his Christian Sabbath. If the first part of his thesis is correct, then he totally failed to build on the things he proved, building instead on the very presuppositions of the classic covenant theology that he just demolished. It seems to me that Bunyan cannot have his cake and eat it too. I personally do not question that his arguments in the first section are correct).
Bunyan then proceeds with a fifth question relating to the establishing of Sunday as the day of worship for the Christian church. At this point he sounds like he is teaching the Westminster Confession. However, if, as Chantry correctly observed, Bunyan's earlier arguments are correct, then he has totally destroyed the very foundation he now seeks to use for his Christian Sabbath.
As I mentioned before, this confusion is not hard to understand since Bunyan was not at all involved in defending or destroying either "covenant theology" or any other view, including the one that I hold. He was attacking "seventh day Christians." The important thing to remember is that his first three questions deal entirely with the basic presupposition of covenant sabbath theology, namely, that the fourth commandment simply must be a Creation Ordinance, or unchanging moral commandment, given to Adam. Bunyan's fifth question is totally involved in proving the early church worshipped on Sunday, and is, in one sense, immaterial to our discussion. However, the answer to both the fourth and fifth question cannot be divorced from the arguments of the first three questions. Everything hinges on whether the seventh day sabbath, or fourth commandment, is a moral law given to Adam and not a ceremonial law given only to Israel. Bunyan is clear as crystal that it is the latter.
Let me give a summation of Bunyan's arguments in his answer to the first three questions listed above. All three of these questions deal with one basic question: "Is the seventh day sabbath, given to Israel in Exodus 20:8-11, a moral commandment that was first given to Adam in the garden, or is it a ceremonial sign of the covenant that was given only to the nation at Sinai?" It is very obvious that our understanding of the true nature and function of the tablets of stone will be greatly influenced by our answer to this vital question. All of the following quotations are taken from pages 359 - 367 of Volume II of the Baker edition of Bunyan's Works. Here is the first question:
Question I
"Whether the seventh day sabbath is of, or made known to, man by the law and light of nature?"
Bunyan first shows that "by the law and light of nature" he means that which a man can know apart from Scripture or a direct revelation from God. He says:
I grant that by this law of nature, man understands that there is one eternal God; that this God is to be worshipped according to his own will; consequently, that time must be allowed to do it in: but whether the law or light of nature teacheth, and that of itself, without the help of revelation, that the seventh day of the week is that time sanctified of God, and set apart for his worship, that is the question. Ibid, p.362.
It is important for us to see at the outset exactly what Bunyan is saying. The specific point of importance to our discussion is that Bunyan's claim is that the fourth commandment, not only commands a day of worship, but also clearly commands that the seventh day is to be that specific day. Such knowledge of this commandment can only be known from Scripture revelation. There is nothing in nature, history, or man's conscience that will ever lead him to see such a commandment as his duty except a clear revelation from God, and God did not give any such revelation to anyone, including Adam, prior to Exodus 20. What is Bunyan's proof?
First: The "law of nature" in Adam "as a man" was complete when God finished creating him on the sixth day. At this point God had neither yet "rested' nor "sanctified the seventh day." Bunyan correctly observes that (1) since the seventh day sabbath can only be known by direct revelation, and (2) Adam was not given that revelation, it follows that (3) Adam could have had no way of knowing that.
God either did or would sanctify the seventh day of the week at all...Adam was completely made the day before; and God did not sanctify the seventh day before it was, none otherwise than by his secret decree. Therefore, by the law of nature, Adam understood it not, it was not made known to him thereby. Ibid, p.362.
Second: To say that the law of nature taught Adam, or anyone else, to keep the Sabbath is to endow the law of nature with the office and ability of a prophet to "foretell what shall be, and that without a revelation." The following is vintage Bunyan:
Besides, to grant this, is to run into a grievous error; for this doth not only make the law of nature the first of prophets, contrary to Gen. 3:10 compared with Jn. 1:1 but it seems to make the will of God, made known by revelation, a needless thing. For if the law of nature, as such, can predict or foretell God's secrets and that before he reveals them, and this law of nature is universal in every individual man in the world, what need is there of particular prophets or of their holy writings? And indeed here the Quakers and others split themselves. For if the law of nature can of itself reveal unto me one thing pertaining to instituted worship, for that we are treating of now, and the exact time which God has not yet sanctified and set apart for the performance thereof, why may it not reveal unto me more, and so still more; and at last all that is requisite for me to know, both as to my salvation, and how God is to be worshipped in the church on earth. Ibid, p.362
Third: If the law of nature gives all men a knowledge of the moral law of God, and the Sabbath commandment is part of that moral law, then both Adam and all his descendants would "by nature" be convinced of the necessity of keeping it, even though they never read or heard of the revealed will of God in Scripture. However, as Bunyan observes, "but this we find not in the world."
In actual fact, we have never discovered a single tribe or people anywhere in the world that did not have a knowledge of morality very similar to the morality contained in the Decalogue. This is Paul's argument in Romans 2:12-14. However, we have never found a single tribe or person who believed in, or had even heard about, a seventh day sabbath or any other kind of Sabbath. Such a situation would be impossible if the Sabbath command was a moral commandment "written in man's nature" like the other nine.
For though it is true that the law of nature is common to all, and that all men are to this day under the power and command thereof; yet we find not that they are by nature under the conviction of the necessity of keeping of a seventh day sabbath. Yea, the Gentiles, though we read not that they ever despised the law of nature, yet never had, as such, a reverence of a seventh day sabbath, but rather the contrary. Ibid, 362.
Fourth: Bunyan argues that if the seventh day sabbath is not a part of the law of nature, or moral law of God in man, then it follows that it is not obligatory upon all men. Only those under that particular law are responsible to it.
Fifth: Bunyan clearly rejects the idea that "the seventh day sabbath" is a "moral" commandment. His main reason is:
because though we read that the law of nature, and that before Moses, was charged upon the world; yet I find not till then, that the profanation of a seventh day sabbath was charged upon the world; and indeed to me this very thing makes a great scruple in the case. A law, as I said, we read of and that from Adam to Moses. Rom.5:13,14. The transgressions also of that law, we read of them, and that particularly, as in Gen.4:8 & 6:5; 9:21,22; 12:13; 18:12-15; 19:5; (Ez.16:49,50) Gen.31:30; 35:2; 40:15; 44:8-10. De.8:19,20; 12:2. Ps.106:35-37. and Romans the first and second chapters. But in all the scriptures we do not read that the breach of a seventh day sabbath was charged upon men as men all that time. Ibid, 363
In typical style Bunyan concludes:
It follows therefore, that if the law of nature doth not of itself reveal to us, as men, that the seventh day is the holy sabbath of God. That day, as to the sanction of it, is not moral but rather arbitrary, to with, imposed by the will of God upon his people until the time he thought fit to change it for another day. Ibid, 363.
Question II
Whether the seventh day sabbath, as to man's keeping of it holy, was ever made known to, or imposed by, a positive precept upon him until the time of Moses? Which from Adam was about two thousand years.
Bunyan is one of those few writers who presupposes what an objector will say and proceeds to stop their mouth before it is open. Before he proves this point he makes sure we understand the point being discussed. He does not question the fact that God sanctified the Sabbath day for Himself at creation. That is clear from the text in Genesis. Bunyan says,
But the question is, whether when God did thus sanctify this day to his own rest, he did also by the space of time above-mentioned [at Sinai], impose it as a holy sabbath of rest upon men; to the end they might solemnize worship to him in special manner thereon?" Ibid, 363
Bunyan then states his reasons for rejecting the claim that the fourth commandment was ever given to anyone before it was given through Moses. Here is Bunyan's first proof:
First, Because we read not that it was. And reading, I mean, of the divine testimony is ordained of God for us to find out the mind of God both as to faith and out performance of acceptable service to him.
In reading also, we are to have regard to two things.
I. To see if we can find a precept: or,
II. A countenanced practice for what we do.
For both these ways we are to search, that we may find out what is that good, that acceptable will of God.
For the first of these we have Gen. 2:16,17 and for the second, Gen. 8:20,21. (As to public worship but not on a stated day.)
Now as to the imposing of a seventh day sabbath upon men from Adam to Moses, of that we find nothing in holy writ either from precept or example. True, we find that solemn worship was performed by the saints that then lived: for both Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob sacrificed unto God, Gen. 4:4; 8:20,21; 12:7; 13:4; 35:1, but we read not that the seventh day was the time prefixed of God for their so worshipping or that they took any notice of it. Some say, that Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, broke also the seventh day sabbath, because he fell on that day; but we read not that the breach of a sabbath was charged upon him. That which we read is this: 'Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?' Gen.3:11. Some say also that Cain killed Abel on a sabbath day; but we read not that in his charge God laid any such thing at his door. This was it of which he stood guilty before God: namely, that his brother's blood cried unto God against him from the ground. Gen. 4:10
I therefore take little notice of what a man saith, though he flourisheth his matter with many brave words, if he bring not with him, 'Thus saith the Lord.' For that, and that only, ought to be my ground of faith as to how my God would be worshipped by me. For in the matters material to the worship of God it is safest that thus I be guided in my judgment: for here only I perceive 'the footsteps of the flock,' Ca.1:8; Ez. 3:11. They say further, that for God to sanctify a thing is to set it apart. This being true; then it follows that the seventh day sabbath was sanctified, that is, set apart for Adam in paradise; and so, that it was ordained a sabbath of rest to the saints from the beginning.
But I answer, as I hinted before, that God did sanctify it to his own rest. 'The LORD (also) hath set apart him that is godly for himself.' But again, it is one thing for God to sanctify this or that thing to a use, and another thing to command that thing be forthwith in being to us. As, for instance: the land of Canaan was set apart many years for the children of Israel before they possessed that land. Christ Jesus was long sanctified, that is set apart to be our redeemer, before he sent him into the world. De. 32:8; Jn. 10:36.
If then, by God's sanctifying of the seventh day for a sabbath, you understand it for a sabbath for man,(but the text saith not so) yet it might be so set apart for man, long before it should be, as such, made known unto him. And that the seventh day sabbath was not as yet made known to men. Ibid, p.363,4.
In the second proof under this point Bunyan shows that the revelation of the Sabbath commandment to Moses in Exodus had to be new revelation. It could not possibly have been known before that time according to the facts in the texts.
Second, consider Moses himself seems to have the knowledge of it at first, not tradition, but by revelation; as it is. Ex.16:23,2 'This is that (saith he) which the Lord hath said, (namely to me; for we read not, as yet, that he said it to anybody else), Tomorrow is the sabbath of the holy rest unto the Lord.'
Also, holy Nehemiah suggests this, when he saith of Israel to God, Thou 'madest known unto them thy holy sabbath (by the hand of Moses thy servant)' Neh. 9:14. The first of these texts shows us, that tidings of a seventh day sabbath for men, came first to Moses from heaven: and the second, that it was to Israel before unknown.
But how could be either the one or the other? If the seventh day sabbath was taught to men by the light of nature, which is the moral law? Or if from the beginning it was given to men by a positive precept for to be kept.
This therefore strengthens my doubt about the affirmative of the first question, and also prepares an argument for what I plead as to this we have now under consideration. Ibid, p. 364.
The Third proof is an expansion of the second proof. The argument here concerns the connection of the known punishment of a commandment with the giving of the commandment.
Third, this yet seems to me more scrupulous, because that the punishment due to the breach of the seventh day sabbath was hid from men to the time of Moses; as is clear, for that it is said of the breaker of the sabbath, 'They put him in ward, because it was not (as yet) declared what should be done to him.' Num. 15:32-36.
But I think, had this seventh day sabbath been imposed upon men from the beginning, the penalty or punishment due to the breach thereof had certainly been known before now.
When Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the penalty was then, if he disobeyed, annexed to the prohibition. So also it was as to circumcision, the Passover and other ordinances for worship. How then can it be thought that the seventh day sabbath should be imposed upon men from the beginning; and that the punishment for the breach thereof should be hidden with God for the space of two thousand years! Gen.2:16,17; 17:13,14; Ex.12:19,43-48. Ibid, p. 364.
Bunyan then looks at the New Testament and the sabbath commandment:
And I think Christ Jesus and his apostles do plainly enough declare this very thing. For that when they repeat unto the people or expound before them the moral law, they quite exclude the seventh day sabbath. Yea, Paul makes that law to us complete without it.
We will first touch upon what Christ does in this case.
As in his sermon upon the mount, Mt. 5-7. In all that large and heavenly discourse upon this law, you have not one syllable about the seventh day sabbath.
So when the young man came running, and kneeling, and asking what good thing he should do to inherit eternal life, Christ bids him keep the commandments; but when the young man asked which, Christ quite leaves out the seventh day and puts him on the other. As in Mt. 19:16-19. As in Mk. 10:17-20. As in Lk. 18:18-20.
You will say, he left out the first, and second, and third likewise. To which I say, that was because the young man by his question did presuppose that he had been a doer of them: for he professed in his supplication that he was a lover of that which is naturally good, which is God, in that his petition was so universal for everything which he had commanded.
Paul also when he makes mention of the moral law, quite leaves out of that the very name of the seventh day sabbath, and professes, that to us Christians the law of nature is complete without it. As in Rom.3:7-19. As in Rom.13:7-10. As in I tim.1:8-11.
"he that loveth another, saith he, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
I make not an argument of this, but take an occasion to mention it as I go. But certainly, had the seventh day sabbath been moral, or of the law of nature, as some would fain persuade themselves, it would not so slenderly have been passed over in all these repetitions of this law, but would by Christ or his apostles have been pressed upon the people, when so fair an opportunity as at these times offered itself unto them. But they knew what they did, and wherefore they were so silent as to the mention of a seventh day sabbath when they so well talked of the law as moral. Ibid, p.365.
Bunyan does not argue from the "good and necessary consequences deduced" by logic from a system of "one covenant and two administrations." Bunyan used Bible verses to establish his points. If Bunyan were alive today he would be accused of being a "Biblicist" who "argued like the Jehovah witness." I honestly believe this is the reason that Bunyan has never been answered. He did not quote creeds, Bunyan used the bible itself to defend his position! The following material under his fifth proof is typical Bunyan:
Fifth, Moses and the prophet Ezekiel both do fully confirm what has been insinuated by us; to wit, that the seventh day, as a sabbath, was not imposed upon men until Israel was brought into the wilderness.
1. Moses saith to Israel, 'Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.' Yea, he tells us, that the covenant which God made with them in Horeb, that written in stones, was not made with their forefathers, to wit, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but with them. De.5:1-15.
2. Ezekiel also is punctual as to this: I caused them, saith God by that prophet, 'to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.' Ez.20:10-12. Ex.20:8; 31:13;35:2.
What can be more plain? And these to be sure, are two notable witnesses of God, who, as you see, do jointly concur in this; to wit, that is was not from paradise, nor from the fathers, but from the wilderness and from Sinai, that men received the seventh day sabbath to keep it holy.
True, it was God's sabbath before: for on the first seventh day we read, that God rested thereon and sanctified it. Hence he calls it in the first place, MY sabbath. I gave them my sabbath: But it seems it was not given to the church till he had brought them into the wilderness.
But I say, if it had been moral, it would have been natural to man; and by the light of nature men would have understood it, even both before it was and otherwise. But of this you see we read nothing, either by positive law, or countenanced example, or any other way, but rather the flat contrary; to wit, that Moses had the knowledge of it first from heaven, not by tradition. That Israel had it, not of or from their fathers, but in the wilderness, from him to wit. Moses, after he had that whole law in which this seventh day sabbath is placed, was given for the bounding and better ordering of them in their church state for their time, till the Messiah should come and put, by a better ministration, this out of his church, as we shall further show.
Here is Bunyan's summary of the second question:
The seventh day sabbath therefore was not from paradise, nor from nature, nor from the fathers, but from the wilderness and from Sinai.
Having clearly proven from Scripture that the fourth commandment was not known or given until Israel camped at Sinai, the next logical question concerns the relationship of the Gentiles to the seventh day sabbath. The Gentiles surely had the law of nature written in them, but Bunyan has already shown under question one and two that this law did not include the fourth, or Sabbath, commandment. In his third question, Bunyan argues that Scripture shows that the law was not given to the Gentiles.
QUESTION III
Whether when the seventh day sabbath was given to Israel in the wilderness the Gentiles, as such, was concerned therein.
Before I show my ground for this question, I must also first premise, that the Gentiles, as such, were then without the church of God and pale thereof; consequently had nothing to do with the essentials or necessary circumstances of that worship which God had set up for himself now among the children of Israel.
Now then for the ground of the question.
First, we read not that God gave it to any but to the seed of Jacob. Hence it is said to Israel, and to Israel only, 'The Lord hath given YOU the sabbath.' Ex.16:29. and again, 'also I gave THEM my sabbath.' Ez.20:5,12
Now, if the gift of the seventh day sabbath was only to Israel, as these texts do more than seem to say; then to the Gentiles, as such, it was not given. Unless any shall conclude, that God by thus doing preferred the Jew to a state of gentileism; or that he bestowed on them, by thus doing, some high Gentile privilege. But this would be very fictitious. For, to lay aside reason, the text always, as to preference, did set the Jew in the first of places. Rom.2:10. Nor was his giving the seventh day sabbath to them but a sign and token thereof.
But the great objection is because the seventh day sabbath is found amongst the rest of those precepts which is so commonly called the moral law; for thence it is concluded to be of a perpetual duration.
But I answer: That neither that as given on Sinai is moral; I mean as to the manner and ends of its ministration of which, God permitting, we shall say more in our answer to the fourth question, whither I direct you for satisfaction. Ibid, p.366.
In his second proof under this point, Bunyan uses arguments that I had never heard anyone else use. His argument is as follows: (1) God gave Israel the Sabbath commandment along with specific "ceremonies that were essential to the right keeping of the sabbath;" (2) If the Sabbath is a moral law, then obviously God gave it to the Gentiles as well as the Jews; (3) but it is perfectly evident that God did not given the Gentiles the ceremonial rites and ceremonies which were essential to correctly keep the Sabbaths; (4) here is Bunyan's response to these propositions:
...To say that God gave this seventh day sabbath to the Gentiles, as such, (and yet so he must, if it be of the moral law) is as much as to say that God hath ordained that sabbath should be kept by the Gentiles without; but by the Jews, not without her ceremonies. And what conclusion will follow from hence, but that God did at the one and the same time set up two sorts of acceptable worships in the world: one among the Jews, another among the Gentiles! But how ridiculous such a thought would be, and how repugnant to the wisdom of God, you may easily perceive. Ibid, p.366.
Yea, what a diminution would this be to God's church that then was, for one to say, the Gentiles were to serve God with more liberty than the Jew! For the law was a yoke, and yet the Gentile is called the dog, and said to be without God in the world. De.7:7. Ps.147:19,20. Mat.15:26. Eph.2:11,12. Ibid, p.366
Bunyan shows the Book of Nehemiah proves the fact that God gave the Sabbath commandment only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. Notice again that Bunyan is using Scripture texts and not logic.
Third, When the Gentiles, at the Jews' return from Babylon, came and offered their wares to sell to the children of Israel at Jerusalem on this sabbath; yea, and sold them to them too: yet not they, but the Jews were rebuked as the only breakers of the sabbath. Nay, there dwelt then at Jerusalem men of Tyre, that on this sabbath sold their commodities to the Jews, and men of Judah: yet not they but the men of Judah were contended with as the breakers of this sabbath.
True, good Nehemiah did threaten the Gentiles that were merchants for lying about the walls of the city, for that by that means they were a temptation to the Jews to break their Sabbaths; but still he charged the breach thereof only upon his own people. Ne.13:15-20.
But can it be imagined, had the Gentiles now been concerned with this sabbath by law divine, that so holy a man as Nehemiah would have let them escape without a rebuke for so notorious a transgression thereof; especially considering, that now also they were upon God's ground, to wit, within and without the walls of Jerusalem. Ibid, p.366
The commands to obey the Sabbath were addressed specifically to the Nation of Israel.
Fourth, Wherefore he saith to Israel again, 'Verily my Sabbaths YE shall keep.' And again, 'YE shall keep the sabbath.' And again, 'The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout THEIR generations.' Ex.31:14-16; and 16:29. [Bunyan's editor adds the following footnote: The Lord hath given YOU the sabbath.' See also 31:17, 'It (the observance of the sabbath) is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever.']
What can be more plain, these things that standing in the testament of God, than that the seventh day sabbath, as such, was given to Israel, to Israel ONLY; and that the Gentiles, as such, were not concerned therein! Ibid, p.366
Bunyan's fifth proof shows that he not only clearly understood that the Sabbath was the sign of the old covenant that God made with Israel, but also that the Sabbath pointed to Christ Himself and the rest we have in Him.
Fifth, The very reason also of God's giving of the seventh day sabbath to the Jews, doth exclude the Gentiles, as such, from having any concern therein. For it was given to the Jews, as was said before, as they were considered God's church and for a sign and token by which they should know that He had chosen and sanctified them to Himself for a peculiar people. Ex.31:13-17. Ez. 20:12,13.
And a great token and sign it was that He had so chosen them: for in that He had given to them this sabbath, he had given to them (His own rest) a figure and pledge of His sending His Son into the world to redeem them from the bondage and slavery of the devil: of which indeed this sabbath was a shadow or type. Col.2:16,17 Ibid, pgs. 366,7
Postscript
If my theological system absolutely depended on the fourth commandment being a Creation Ordinance, I would do with Bunyan's thesis on the Sabbath exactly what covenant theologians do - I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. I would "let it stand" and pretend it had never been written!