The Morality Of The Sabbath

By Michael Borg

Before the rise of Puritan theology and the Puritans’ strict observance of the Sabbath, Sabbatarianism as a doctrine primarily concerned the Roman Catholic Church. [1] In modern England, the question concerning the Sabbath became twofold: “Both to the manner and to the day of observance.” [2] During the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas argued that the fourth commandment, though moral, was shrouded in a ceremonial aspect that affected both the Sabbath’s manner and the day; this became the universal opinion among theologians. [3] Under the New Testament, Christians were no longer bound by the ceremonial aspect, but the moral kernel alone.

Arguably, even Reformers such as Luther and Calvin thought undue Sabbath keeping was not in accord with Christian liberty. [4] This continental mindset prevailed in English Protestantism through the mid-sixteenth century. But by the latter half of the 1500s, widespread dissatisfaction had begun to spread throughout England. Katz notes the words of Richard Fletcher, citing that these words embodied the growing disfavor of anti-Sabbatarianism: “It is no greater a sin to steal a horse on Monday then to sell him in fayre on the Sunday; that it is as ill to play at games as shouting, bowling on Sunday as to lie with your neighbors wife on Monday.” [5] It was from this context that the Puritan defense of Sabbatarianism arose—though not all Puritans were so deft in defending and siding with this growing tension.

The controversy over the rightful keeping of the Sabbath in the days of the Puritans was closely connected with political, practical, and doctrinal concerns. [6] Walter Douglas argues that following the Hampton Court Conference (1604), the Puritans “earnestly pleaded for a thorough reform of Sunday observance that would reflect the practice of the primitive Christian church and the harmony of the scriptural injunctions enjoined upon all Christians.” [7] Much of the Puritan consternation over the Sabbath was fueled by King James I’s publication, The Book of Sports, and later, under the influence of Archbishop Laud, King Charles’s concurring publication. [8]

The Puritan outcry against The Book of Sports was great and loud. Throughout Puritan history, many individuals wrote against the abuses of the Sabbath and proper Sabbath keeping. [9] A particular Sabbatarian view became identified with the Puritans in this time: they were strict Sabbatarians both in relation to manner and day. It is argued that, broadly conceived, the Puritans understood the validity of the Sabbath to be couched in God’s covenant with man and the perpetual nature of the Ten Commandments.

While even a brief overview of Puritan sabbatarianism is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to see the role that Nicholas Bownde (d. 1613) played in developing a Puritan theology of the Sabbath. Dennison notes the priority of Bownde’s thought: “Bownd’s treatise is the classic presentation of the Puritan view; all future writers, whether pro- or anti-Sabbatarian, would be forced to deal with his exposition.” [10] Yet, some, even in his own day, accused Bownde of idolizing the Sabbath and keeping it too strictly. [11] Others, such as Thomas Fuller, credit Bownde with bringing about the first revival of strict Sabbath keeping. [12] Daniel Neal sees Bownde’s work as the turning point in Puritan history, [13] and John Primus directs his readers to understand the “innovative nature” of Bownde’s work on the Sabbath. [14] Allen concludes his study on Bownde by saying: “I would contend that Bownde’s argument was persuasive in his context, because it satisfied the dual religious concerns of his day by affirming both the continued validity of the entire Decalogue including the fourth commandment as it reads with nothing ceremonial in it [manner], as well as the practice of the church in its observance of Sunday [day].” [15]

Recent scholarship on the Sabbath appears to restrict Sabbath arguments to the day of observance and then, only consequentially, the manner of it. [16] In light of this recent scholarship, it is beneficial to reassess Bownde’s argument for the manner of Sabbath keeping as Bownde’s argument has been esteemed throughout history. In what follows, this article will argue that Bownde’s view of the Sabbath is firmly rooted in the moral law which binds observance to a specific manner and consequentially influences the day of the Sabbath. This will become clear through a survey of necessary (logical) steps which elucidate Bownde’s argument from his magnum opus, Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti. [17] Following the overview, this article assesses the theological underpinnings of such an approach. [18]

Bownde’s Argumentation

Bownde’s book is divided into two major parts and further subdivided into two focuses. The parts of the book relate to the “rest” of the fourth commandment and the “sanctifying” of the fourth commandment. The subdivisions, especially of the first part, are focused on theology and practice—though not so clearly cut. Our interest lies in the first part of Bownde’s work with a particular emphasis on the theological focus—namely, looking at the manner of Sabbath rest as exposited by Bownde.

Bownde begins his argument by focusing closely on the fourth commandment: “So here in the fourth [commandment], the special day and time, when, and how long this should be, not only or so much privately, but most of all openly and publicly thus practiced of the whole Church, and of every man, from time to time unto the worlds end.” [19] This beginning point is of the utmost importance as it reflects, even at the outset, a Puritan view of the Ten Commandments. Later, the Westminster divines would codify what is implicitly stated here: that the moral law of God is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments (WSC Q&A 41). Thus, Bownde begins by directing the eyes of his readers to the Ten Commandments because Christians have every obligation to keep the moral law— even while observing the Sabbath on the first day of the week. [20]

Working within a cultural context, the fourth commandment was thought to be substantially different from the other nine commandments because it included aspects of the ceremonial law. This view was promoted by Thomas Aquinas and, until Bownde’s work, was not substantially refuted. While Bownde acknowledges that the fourth commandment is different from the other nine, he sees these differences as more formal or circumstantial than substantial. The following differences are highlighted by Bownde as he attempts to engage in the discussion of his historical context. Again, his concern is with showing the perpetual nature of the Ten Commandments— particularly the fourth—which involves serious interaction with the theology of his time.

First, the fourth commandment commands people to “remember” the Sabbath. Unlike the other commandments, this command focuses on our aptness to forget to keep the Sabbath. Second, it clearly delineates between what is good and evil to do on the Sabbath. Third, the fourth commandment comes with three reasons attached to it: “For he setteth down three reasons, not only to commend unto us the excellency, and to show the necessity of keeping of it: but also [to] give us to understand, how rebellious and corrupt our nature is here especially. As it is indeed: for many are not persuaded, that there be any day at all kept.” [21] Fourth, this commandment binds us to others in that masters are required [to] ensure their servants’ keeping of the Sabbath. [22] These differences being established, Bownde’s concern is beyond Israel’s observance of the Ten Commandments.

As important as the fourth commandment was to the Israelites, Bownde explicitly argues that the command to keep the Sabbath was not restricted to the Mosaic administration. Rather, the Sabbath extends back to the prelapsarian era: “And for the practice of [the Sabbath]…it was kept before the Law was pronounced in Mount Sinai… being one of the ten Commandments of the Moral law…. Adam being created according to the image of God in knowledge, was no more ignorant of this [Sabbath keeping].” [23] Bownde further develops this argument through a series of biblical allusions, including the biblical testimony that in the days of Seth people made places of worship, [24] and that “remember” is meant to relate back to the (innate) knowledge that Adam and Eve had concerning Sabbath keeping. [25] Beside the biblical precedence, Bownde also argues the antiquity of this argument: “Thus we see that this judgment is clear, that the law of the Sabbath was well known in the Church of God, and practiced of the holy fathers long before the law was given. And of this judgment also for the most part are all the Greek and Latin fathers: and yet I do not deny but that some are otherwise minded.” [26] Thus, Bownde extends his case for Sabbath keeping back to the time of creation. Israel was not enjoined to observe the Sabbath apart from what the Patriarchs were enjoined to observe.

But Bownde understands that an argument for the Old Testament keeping of the Sabbath was not abrogated with the coming of the New Testament. Rather, the Old Testament and the great antiquity of this law establishes the church’s duty to honor the Sabbath in all dispensations. Among other arguments, Bownde argues this continuation on the basis of Christ’s example and that of New Testament Christians. [27] Had this commandment been abrogated, the New Testament example (or explicit command) would have made this known. But in God’s revelation, the requirement to observe the Sabbath was never abrogated, and the testimony of the New Testament is silent.

Responding to Aquinas’s view that the fourth commandment was clothed in ceremonial aspects, Bownde rejects a ceremonial aspect: “Thus it is sufficiently proved, that the Sabbath was none of those Ceremonies, which were justly abrogated at the coming of Christ, as being appointed of God for no further time: but yet continued in the practice of the Church when all other ceased, yea was kept faithfully in the Church by all them, who had with one consent shut out all the rest.” [28] No ceremonial aspect of the commandment was fulfilled and thus abrogated in the life and death of Christ, which negates Aquinas’s argument.

Having laid this foundation, Bownde understands that some argue for a ceremonial aspect based on the commandment’s requirement to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week. Yet, in Puritan England, it was almost universally accepted that Sabbath observance was on the first day of the week—a change clearly grounded in history, but was it grounded in Scripture? To many, this presented a quandary of how this change was permissible if there is no ceremonial aspect to the fourth commandment. As noted, prior to Bownde, this change was accounted for on the basis of a ceremonial aspect working within the commandment. But Bownde responds accordingly, writing: “But the ordinary and perpetual Sabbath of days, that is the seventh day…is not to be reckoned among the figures and ceremonies of the Jews, both because it was ordained in Paradise before the fall of man for the worship of God, and also it is commanded in the Decalogue, which contains in it nothing ceremonial, nothing typical, nothing to be abrogated.” [29] For Bownde, there was no substantial mixture of a moral and ceremonial aspect to the fourth commandment [30]— even concerning the day on which the Sabbath was to be observed.

Bownde understood the serious challenge this change presented to his position and yet he sought to reconcile it. While Bownde develops this thought through a series of objections and counter-arguments, for brevity’s sake this paper can only address four of these arguments as they are foundational to understanding Bownde’s resolution.

First, Bownde addresses those who argue that the seventh day, though perpetual, was ceremonial under the Mosaic administration and of a moral nature under the New Testament. Bownde dismisses this as an incompatible viewpoint, especially because he understands Sabbath-keeping to extend back prior to the Fall. This would either change the moral law given to Adam, or it would require Adam to keep the Sabbath in a ceremonial way—both of which appear illogical to Bownde. He clarifies: “So that it [Sabbath-keeping] was a sign of a thing past, but not as a figure of a thing to come. And so in that sense may [the] Lord’s day which we now keep, be still called a sign, namely, of the redemption of the world, that is, a thing to put us in mind of it…not that there was any ceremony in it, but something else, as namely that first world was ended for the memory of creation, whereof it was first appointed by God.” [31] In a later summation, Bownde clarifies that the seventh day is not ceremonial because God has commanded one in seven days to be observed without specifically restricting it to Saturday, which allows for the New Testament precedence of keeping the Sabbath on Sunday—a point which Bownde considerably develops. [32] Bownde’s primary argument is that the example of the New Testament church and the explicit words of the Apostle John in Revelation give cause for the Sabbath to be changed from Saturday to Sunday as a celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week.

Second, Bownde deals with the argument that the “rest” of the seventh day was ceremonial. He does not conceive how this can be so, primarily because the command to rest on the seventh day is following God’s pattern in creation. Adam was commanded to rest, not based on a ceremony that typified Christ’s work, but because of what God did at creation. [33] Under the present dispensation, however, Bownde argues that the Sabbath is a sign, while carefully distinguishing that “[e]very ceremony and figure is a sign, yet every sign is not a figure…. [The] Sabbath is a sign, that is, a pledge of God’s good will unto us, whereby we should learn and know that he is unto us, and that we should be unto him.” [34] Bownde thus summarizes: “I am persuaded that even therefore it ought always to continue: and that this sign; without which, as without a bright shining light in the mist of darkness, we should ever be ignorant of Gods goodness to us, and of our duties unto him: as appeareth by the Heathen and ungodly.” [35] The moral nature of the fourth commandment is that man is reminded of his duty to God and God’s dedication to him.

Third, Bownde admits that those who see the rest as ceremonial may be arguing on the basis of strictness: “But it may be they stand not so much upon rest, as upon the strictness and preciseness of it, which they make to be Jewish and ceremonial; and so though under the Gospel we be still bound to rest for the above named causes, yet not so strictly and exactly, and in so many things and under so great punishment as the Jews were.” [36] Again, Bownde cannot concede to this point, noting that Paul commands his readers to walk circumspectly and wisely. His conclusion follows in which he, interestingly, puts a positive spin on his argument: “In all these the Jews ordinarily had as much liberty as we, yea and that in all other things we are as much restrained as they, and that they had as much liberty as we, and that both we and they are under, as it were, one and the same longitude and latitude of this commandment.” [37] Later, Bownde similarly argues: “Our Savior Christ…bringeth not in any new liberty, which was not granted before saying, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” [38]

Fourth, it is helpful to understand the correlation Bownde sees between creation and redemption. He furthers his case for the perpetuity of the fourth commandment by writing, “The day of redemption doth not put out the memory of the creation, but the excellency of it is so great, that though they be both together, yet the one cannot be seen as it were for the other; no more than the sun and the moon being in the firmament together, they do not give both of them light together.” [39] A sort of coterminous relationship between the creation Sabbath and redemptive Sabbath keeps them from functioning ceremonially. [40]

Turning from these arguments, Bownde turns to examine the explicit commandment in the Decalogue. He notes that the fourth commandment is comprised of two parts: “remember” and “sanctify.” The first part delegates the day of worship, and the second, the acts that are permitted on the day. [41] Having already argued for the necessary change of the day for the New Testament believers, Bownde repeats his argument against a Saturday observance, noting, “What is the first thing required in this commandment, namely, that upon the sevneth day we should rest: for the Sabbath day in the first tongue therein it was pronounced and written, signifieth as much as the day of rest: yet so as that in the beginning, it was the proper name of the seventh day, because that then there were no other days of rest appointed by God, but only that.” [42]

As regards the nature of the rest, Bownde believes “the rest upon this day must be a most careful, exact, and precise rest.” [43] So often does the Bible exhort men to “rest” that readers ought to consider the considerable weight and force of this word. [44] Offering a summary of this twofold understanding of the commandment, Bownde says, “Thus we have hitherto seen concerning this matter, not only that the Lord requireth in this Commandment, that we should rest upon the seventh day; but how necessarily he requireth it of us, and what great care we ought to have of it.” [45]

Lest his readers be burdened by such stipulations, Bownde continues to focus on why God requires such a rest from His people on the Sabbath. The primary reason why the Scriptures exhort men to rest on the Sabbath is because it prepares them for the better worship and holiness that God requires of them from which they are kept in the ordinary course of one’s labors. Bownde effectually achieves an understanding that the Sabbath is not burdensome but frees us from the burdensome work of the other six days. He demonstrates this by saying, “The first and principal is that which was from the beginning, that men might be the more fit to sanctify it [Sabbath day] in the holy service of God; which because they could not do with all the powers of their soul and body, as the worship of God requireth, so long as they are about their worldly business.” [46] Later he adds, “The principal end then of rest is, that we might wholly in soul and body without all let and interruption attend upon the worship of God.” [47]

Having established these five principles of the perpetual nature of the fourth commandment, Bownde pushes further by carefully and subtly making an important distinction. The last great argument of Part 1 presumably seeks to deal with the historical context of the Ten Commandments. Deuteronomy 5:15 connects the moral command of rest on the seventh day to Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt. Bownde deals honestly with the difficulty this passage introduces: “[Deut. 5:15] in which place he maketh the day of rest to be a memorial to the Jews.” [48] While Bownde has dispensed with the idea that the moral commandments in the Decalogue are embedded in ceremonial husks, he cannot avoid this supposed historical tension. If Bownde’s dilemma is understood correctly, the fourth commandment is shrouded in the context of Israel’s keeping the Sabbath out of remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt. The plain sense of this reading would clearly challenge Bownde’s argument. How can one who does not live in this historical context keep a commandment that is dependent on it?

Bownde resolves this in a surprising way. “For this case also were they bound [Deut. 5:15] to rest upon the Sabbath, which bound none but them, because they only were partakers of the redemption from Egypt, wherein they only were in bondage.” [49] So while Bownde argues that the Ten Commandments do not contain any ceremonial husks, there is a sense in which they contain a historical husk, and this historical context binds the Jews alone. It is likely palatable to say that this historical context is supernumerary—at least, as it pertains to the church of all ages— even as Bownde argues that none could keep the Sabbath in this manner other than the Jews. He further explains: “So that the Jews having this reason to move them to this rest, beside the above mentioned; were more severely tied unto it, than any other people.” [50]

Bownde is careful, however, to build safely on the foundation he has laid—just because Israel is doubly accountable to keep the commandment within this historical context does not mean that previous or later generations of the church are not bound by this commandment. When Israel was not yet participating in this historical context, the fourth commandment “was required at the hands of all men, long before this cause was annexed unto it: and therefore though that be removed and taken away, yea and the people to whom it only appertained: yet notwithstanding the Sabbath and day of Rest is not gone with them.” [51] It is only to the historical husk that the church of all ages is not to be bound.

There is one final clarification here embedded in Bownde’s argument that deserves attention. He does not see this historical context pertaining to the fourth commandment alone, but that it belongs to every moral precept. Again, he clarifies: “We may consider the like almost in every moral precept; which though every one of them was from the beginning, yet as they were given to the people of the Jews, had certain things added unto them, as accessory helps to keep them in the better obedience of them; which now being taken away again, the first commandment themselves have lost nothing of their former authority, but do bind as much, as ever they did.” [52]

In this sense, Bownde sees all moral precepts having this added historical context which helped to guide the Israelites into a more careful observance of the Ten Commandments, but which in no way mitigates the need to keep all or any of the commandment(s) as understood since the days of Adam. [53] Bownde elaborates this necessity by noting:

All which is most true in the Sabbath of the holy rest, wherein we have seen that [this] rest was commanded at the first, and we say it is still required; notwithstanding we grant, that in respect of the Jews (in time) was adjoined unto it the remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt by Moses, which was past; in respect of which it was a monument of a thing already performed, & a reason to persuade them to the observation of the Sabbath: and therefore though the ceremony or this reason of the rest be ended, yet there is no reason why the rest itself should be taken away, which was com-command [sic] longed before any such ceremony or end, or reason was adjoined unto it. Insomuch that we still keep the rest of the Sabbath, but not to that end or for that cause, that the Jews kept it not as a badge of our deliverance from Egypt, (in the which we never were oppressed:) neither as a figure of our redemption to be wrought by Christ, which in his word most clearly we see is already performed; nor that in it we might as in a shadow obscurely and darkly behold our eternal resting, and ceasing from sin, which he hath already purchased unto us in his death, and hath in his Gospel most lively pointed out before our eyes: but we do observe the rest, and confess, that it most nearly concerneth us, because of the first institution; that we resting from our ordinary business, might bestow the day in the holy service of God, in which we cannot in any acceptable manner be occupied at all, unless we rest from the other, according to the Commandment. [54]

This is vitally important to the way in which he conceived of the Sabbath. Taking this quote at face value, Bownde appears to be arguing that what is perpetually binding in the fourth commandment is not resting from sin per se or a rest of remembrance—namely, redemption—but a resting from our mundane labor as God originally commanded Adam in the Garden of Eden. [55] Going further, Bownde appears to minimize the redemptive aspect of resting from a Christological perspective. God’s people do not rest because of what Christ has done or because of what lies in store for believers, but they rest in order to worship. Unhindered worship is the basis of rest in the fourth commandment: “But yet if you further demand from what things we should rest…the principal end of resting is, that the day and time might be sanctified in the holy worship of God; as the Word, the Sacraments & prayer, it must of necessity follow, that what soever thing doth hinder us from spending the time profitable in these things, we must rest from them.” [56] The majority of the final part of Book I focuses on how we are to rest. Throughout, Bownde uses the historical examples of Israelite worship to clarify what individuals are forbidden to do in light of this rest. He also spends a great deal of time clarifying works of necessity and what God permits and forbids all men of all sorts and of all times. [57]

Bownde helpfully responds to a common objection raised against such an equality of binding. The objection summarily centers on the validity of Christian freedom purchased by Christ. Bownde responds by saying that New Testament Christians “are delivered from that manner of keeping the Sabbath, which the Jews were tied unto: as that it might put them in remembrance of that great rest, which the Lord bestowed upon them.” [58] This means that a New Testament Christian’s “condition is more easy and tolerable, in that we be freed from this.” [59] The second sense in which New Testament Christians have more liberty pertains to the multitude of Sabbath sacrifices required during the Mosaic administration. With these sacrifices “the Sabbath was more laborious, and painful unto them, and sooner might they offend in it: instead of what we have fewer things to do, and they be more simple, plain and easy, as the hearing of the word, receiving of the Sacraments, and prayer.” [60] The third sense in which New Testament Christians have greater liberty pertains to the helps which furthered their observation of the fourth commandment. Considered here, Bownde refers to the sabbaths, New Moons, Feast of Weeks, Passover, and other solemnities. [61] New Testament Christians have been brought into greater maturity than the children under the law: “So now, though we be charged to rest upon the Sabbath, yet when we are not overcharged with those Jewish ceremonies, which they (being children) had given them as furtherances unto them; let us not complain, before we have cause, neither murmur against God, because we cannot be so licentious, as we would.” [62]

Through all of this, Bownde unequivocally asserts that “Christians should take [themselves] as straitly bound to rest upon the Lords day, as the Jews were upon their Sabbath: for seeing it is one of the moral commandments it bindeth us as well as them, for they are all of equal authority, and do bind all men alike.” [63] He defends this assertion through four ancillary reasons. First, the fourth commandment belongs to the Decalogue as much as the other nine, morally binding, commandments. Second, Jew and Gentile are both bound to this commandment because of the pattern God established in creation as the Creator. Third, rest is for the purpose of worship; because those under the new dispensation are bound to worship, the commandment remains the same. And fourth, the gospel does not grant New Testament Christians liberty from a moral commandment. [64] The perpetual nature of the fourth commandment, therefore, makes it clear that Old Testament and New Testament believers are equally bound to observe it.

Assessment

The aim of this paper is to assess the logical conclusions of Bownde’s argument and thus to add further discussion to contemporary treatments of the Sabbath that focus primarily on the day, not the manner of Sabbath keeping. Contemporary literature understands the day to be abrogated and therefore has very little concern in discussing the manner of Sabbath keeping. These conclusions will be outlined briefly.

First, Allen rightly notes that Bownde’s Sabbatarian theology is an application of his spirituality, [65] and more broadly of Puritan spirituality. Thus Sabbath observance is at the root of spirituality: “It is the application of people’s religious beliefs to their way of life.” [66] Working with this definition, it is helpful to see that Bownde is not simply dealing with a theoretical issue regarding the perpetual nature of the Ten Commandments or the moral law; he is more interested in showing how the Sabbath is integral to the spirituality of individuals. Bownde saw Sabbath keeping as the fruit of mortifying sin, and it was also the day in which individuals would gather to foster their spiritual growth through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. Sabbath keeping, therefore, is intricately related to an individual’s sanctification and holiness. [67]

Viewing the Sabbath from a theological perspective alone, many studies fail to deal honestly with the sanctifying effect the Sabbath has on those who keep it— experiencing what the Puritans sometimes called “the market day of the soul.” From Bownde’s argument, one comes to understand that he would be confused with much of the contemporary discussion on Sabbath keeping that is divorced from the principle of sanctification.

Second, relating Bownde’s view of the Sabbath to later confessional Reformed theology has caused confusion. In order to understand the relative ambiguity of Bownde’s argument, it is again helpful to note the historical context in which Bownde is living. Prior to the time of Christ and in accordance with the Ten Commandments, the covenant community was obligated to keep the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week in accordance with the pattern God set at creation. But it was also common knowledge that after the resurrection of Christ, Christians kept the Sabbath on Sunday, the first day of the week. As noted, in the days of the Reformation, there was a particular tension regarding this that was fueled by the Reformers’ emphasis on sola scriptura. In what the Word of God did not regulate, the church was not bound. So a particular onus on the part of Reformed theologians lay in showing how the Law can be perpetual while the observance ought to be on Sunday. A variety of responses were given, though it appears evident that most conclusions could only base this argument on implicit (via good and necessary consequence) arguments apart from having an explicit command. [68]

Bownde’s objective was to cogently show that the fourth commandment was moral, perpetually binding, and commanded to be observed as a Sabbath (one in seven days). To prove this, Bownde argues for a historical context of the commandments which New Testament Christians are no longer bound by. Belonging to this historical context is the remembrance of being liberated from Egypt, and this on the seventh day. A Christian’s Sabbath keeping is not in relation to redemption from sin (post-lap), but resting from mundane works (pre-lap). Bownde appears to sacrifice a redemptive reason for keeping the Sabbath to account for this change.

Later confessional Reformed theology, however, speaks of the prologue of the Ten Commandments, namely, deliverance from Egypt, as teaching us that God delivers us from our “spiritual thraldom” [69] (see WLC Q&A 101). The outworking of this would aptly lend itself to understanding that believers are (doubly) bound to keep the fourth commandment (as all moral commandments) because of their redemption from “spiritual thraldom.” Later confessional theology appears to typify the deliverance of Egypt as significant for the life of Christians. [70]

Interestingly, Joel Beeke has recently used the fourth commandment as a case example for the didactic use of the law—the normative emphasis of the law for a believer. He states that the fourth commandment, among other things, is a “redemptive memorial,” and clearly states, “We discover that redemption does not alter or annul the requirements to keep the Sabbath holy. Rather, it only adds to the meaning of the day for those who are ‘the redeemed of the LORD.’” [71] This thought ties in perfectly with Bownde’s argument that Israel had a historical context in which they were doubly accountable for keeping the Sabbath. But, within contemporary Reformed theology, this supernumerary responsibility is still a principle by which the New Testament church is bound to keep the Sabbath.

This assessment is historically useful. To think that Reformed theology consistently agreed on the reason for keeping the Ten Commandments is shown here to be false. But it is also an overstatement to say that Bownde stood in opposition to later confessional Reformed theology. Certainly the doctrine of Sabbath observance was being developed among the Reformed from these earlier sentiments of Bownde to later confessional theology. Sabbatarianism was not a monolithic movement even within Puritan thought. Understanding the developing doctrine helps the historical reader understand more of the cultural context. After all, as noted several times, Bownde is really dealing with the issue of the fourth commandment being a moral law as opposed to the medieval view, in which the fourth commandment was ceremonial.

Third, it is important to understand the larger theological context in which Bownde is speaking. The Reformers were pressed to show that God had decreed the day of rest to be changed from Saturday to Sunday, but the larger argument pressing the Puritans was to show that the Ten Commandments were perpetually binding.

Later confessional theology would state that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the moral law (see Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 41). The Westminster Larger Catechism defines the moral law as such: “The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it” (Q&A 93). Discussing the use of the moral law as it pertains to all men, the Larger Catechism says, “The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience” (Q&A 95). [72]

Behind the arguments of Sabbath observance lay this larger theological issue of the relationship between the moral law and the Decalogue. Reformed theology taught that the moral law was summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. But there was disagreement as to how the fourth commandment related to the moral law. Unlike the other nine, the fourth commandment did not appear as inherent in nature. [73] Bownde concedes this as he writes: “And indeed this law was given in the beginning not so much by the light of nature (as the rest of the nine commandments were) but by express word…. For though this be in the law of nature, that some days should be separated to Gods worship…yet that it should be every seventh day, that the Lord himself set down in express words, when he sanctified and blessed it at the first.” [74] This clearly places the fourth commandment in a different category than the other nine—something Bownde wanted to avoid.

Bownde carefully navigates these waters, and perhaps his greatest theological achievement was to press home that the fourth commandment was part of the moral law because it was supernaturally revealed to Adam and thus perpetually binding. This may help one understand why he sees creation as the reason for Sabbath observance as opposed to redemption. If the moral law was only binding to those who were redeemed from sin, Bownde would run the risk of dealing with an arbitrary “moral” law that could be dispensed with, as some Lutherans and Anglicans argued. Furthermore, if the fourth commandment was merely or even partially ceremonial, this would have negative repercussions on the perpetuity of the fourth commandment, especially as regards what is ceremonial and what is morally binding. Bownde needed to forge a trail between these two opinions while maintaining that the Sabbath was instituted quite unlike the other nine commandments but was the same in its moral substance.

Bownde therefore argued that the “moral” precept of the fourth commandment was not a seventh day of worship, but a one in seven day. Under the Mosaic administration, this one in seven was instituted to be Saturday, and by apostolic doctrine under the new covenant it was instituted to be Sunday. For Bownde, this did not produce a conflict. Adam was commanded at creation to rest and therefore this commandment was morally binding and perpetual in nature. This is why Bownde spends such a large amount of time in discussing the manner of rest before he discusses the time of rest; the manner has precedence to clear the way for understanding the time.

In whatever way Bownde’s thought was distinct from later confessional theology, one can appreciate and understand his endeavor. But even more so, the observant reader will see that this father of Sabbatarianism was paving the way for later Reformed development, in which Sabbath observance’s relationship to the Mosaic law was a polemical issue within the universal church. Bownde’s argument is a worthy introduction into this and a provocative, illustrative, and helpful element in Sabbath debates.

Notes

1. David S. Katz, God’s Last Words: Reading the English Bible from the Reformation to Fundamentalism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004), 64.
2. Katz, God’s Last Words, 64 (emphasis mine).
3. Kenneth A. Strand, ed., The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982), 284.
4. See Katz, God’s Last Words, 64.
5. Katz, God’s Last Words, 64.
6. See Christopher Hill, The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, 37-50.
7. Walter B. Douglas, “The Sabbath in Puritanism,” The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publ Assoc, 1982), 232.
8. Charles’s Declaration to His Subjects Concerning Lawful Sports to be Used on Sundays (1633), showing that the Sabbath controversies did not die down in the time of King James.
9. See, for example, Richard Greenham, The Works of the Reverend and Faithful Servant of Jesus Christ M. Richard Greenham, A Treatise of the Sabboth (1599); Thomas Boston, The Commentary on the Shorter Catechism (1853 ed.), 2:186-204; Thomas Ridgeley, The Commentary on the Larger Catechism (1855 ed.), 2:341-63; and Edward Fisher and Thomas Boston, The Marrow of Modern Divinity.
10. James T. Dennison, Jr., The Market Day of the Soul: The Puritan Doctrine of the Sabbath in England 1532-1700 (New York: University Press of America, 1983), 35.
11. See Edward Martin Allen, “Nocholas Bownde and the Context of Sunday Sabbatarianism” (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008), 24.
12. Allen, “Context of Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 28.
13. Allen, “Context of Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 30.
14. Allen, “Context of Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 246.
15. Allen, “Context of Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 271. Some have challenged the influence of Bownde, arguing it was not as widespread as has been argued. Some argue that Bownde’s influence is the result of Peter Heylyn’s study on the early Elizabethan period, noting that the church has some uniformity of agreement prior to Bownde’s publication. See Kenneth L. Parker, The English Sabbath: A Study of Doctrine and Discipline from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 41.
16. See especially A. T. Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective,” in D. A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 311-42. See also G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 775ff.; Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 617ff.; and Peter J. Gentryand Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 338ff.
17. Nicolas Bownd, Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti (London: Feli[t] Kyngston, 1606). Cited hereafter as The True Doctrine of the Sabbath. Bownde had an earlier work, The Doctrine of the Sabbath, first published in 1595. This present work, however, is a more full defense of Bownde’s view regarding the Sabbath and will therefore be more heavily relied upon.
18. For the historical context of Bownde’s sabbatarian arguments, see Allen, “Context of Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 162ff.
19. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 2.
20. Allen, “Context of Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 43.
21. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 4.
22. For these four differences, see Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 2-6.
23. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 12.
24. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 13.
25. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 15.
26. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 21.
27. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 23.
28. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 25, 31-32.
29. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 36.
30. Bownde does permit one to “argue” that there is a ceremonial aspect in as much as the fourth commandment is related to ceremonies: “Now if they mean it to be partly ceremonial, because that in it were included all the Jewish Sabbaths, as their several festival days, and the new Moons, which are abolished: it is to be answered, that besides that those which do urge this, and hold it to be partly ceremonial, do not urge it in this sense, in which we might easily yield unto them, though the speech were somewhat improper: then in the same sense might the second commandment also be called partly ceremonial, because of the would outward worship of the Jews in some sort included in that commandment: but yet none of sound judgment do so speak, or write of that; why should they then do so of this?” (The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 40).
31. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 44.
32. See Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 43, 69-70, 72, and 78ff.
33. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 44-45.
34. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 46. This argument receives separate consideration in Bownde’s work, but because of the close parallel with the stated argument here, we have included this definition in the present context.
35. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 47.
36. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 45.
37. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 45.
38. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 58. Later Bownde challenges dissenters: “Why should we have more liberty than they?” (72-73).
39. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 52.
40. See also Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 73-74.
41. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 122.
42. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 122.
43. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 124.
44. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 126.
45. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 128.
46. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 128-29.
47. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 129-30.
48. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 131.
49. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 131.
50. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 132.
51. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 132.
52. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 132.
53. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 134.
54. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 134-35.
55. Allen helps clarify: “[Bownde’s] answer to this notion is that resting from sin is the fruit of Sabbath-keeping, not its substance. Observing the Sabbath was a means whereby one received power against sin” (“Context on Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 46-47).
56. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 155.
57. See Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 241, for a conclusion of this extended section.
58. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 248.
59. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 249.
60. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 249.
61. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 249.
62. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 250.
63. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 247.
64. See Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 247-48.
65. See Allen, “Context on Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 62.
66. Allen, “Context on Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 62.
67. Dennison, The Market Day of the Soul, 38.
68. For a brief overview, see Allen, “Context on Sunday Sabbatarianism,” 263ff. See also James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline & Government of the Christian Church, 2 vols. (Birmingham, Ala.: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2009), 402ff.
69. Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 101.
70. See, for example, Alexander Whyte, An Exposition on the Shorter Catechism (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Heritage Publications, 2004), 147f., and Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2002), 258.
71. Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 113.
72. See also Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 221-22, and Guy P. Waters, “Romans 10:5 and the Covenant of Works,” in The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, eds. Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David Van Drunen (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2009), 224-26.
73. See Dennison, Market Day of the Soul, 35. See also John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), 18:294-97, and Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I–II. 99. 2. Jonathan Edwards would later write: “The main objection against the perpetuity of this command is, that the duty required is not moral. Those laws whose obligation arises from the nature of things, and from the general state and nature of mankind, as well as from God’s positive state and nature of mankind, as well as from God’s positive revealed will, are called moral laws. Others, whose obligation depends merely upon God’s positive and arbitrary institution, are not moral; such as the ceremonial laws, and the precepts of the gospel, about the two sacraments. Now, the objectors say, they will allow all that is moral in the decalogue to be of perpetual obligation; but this command, they say, is not moral” (The Works of Jonathan Edwards [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003], 2:95).
74. Bownde, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, 11. See also William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Durham: Labrinth Press, 1983), 287.