John Bunyan: Proponent of 1689 Federalism?

In this post I would like to answer the question, was John Bunyan a proponent of 1689 Federalism? This man hardly needs an introduction, he is of course the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, not only a Christian classic, but a classic of English literature as well. John Bunyan was a puritan, or more properly, a separatist and credobaptist. The book I will mainly interact with and of interest for our purposes is The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded, first published in 1659, nearly 20 years before his Pilgrim’s Progress appeared.  

For the most part, I will restrict myself to commenting on how his book relates to 1689 Federalism, but much spiritual profit may be gleaned from it generally. I will examine how Bunyan deals with the following questions to see if, or in what degree, Bunyan aligns with 1689 Federalism. First, are the Old and New Covenants one covenant of grace? Second, is the Covenant of Grace equivalent to the New Covenant? Third, is the New Covenant breakable? Fourth, is the Old Covenant an administration of the Covenant of Grace? Fifth, when was the Covenant of Grace established or promulgated? sixth, how were the saints before the New Covenant saved? (There is a seventh question I would like to address in the future, but I have not seen how Bunyan answers it yet, and I would appreciate if someone would point me in the right direction here; it is the question, how does the Abrahamic Covenant relate to the Covenant of Grace?

1. Are the Old and New Covenants One Covenant of Grace?

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 7 confidently asserts that the old covenant and the new covenant are one covenant of grace differing only in their dispensation. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (republished in 1689 but written in 1677, henceforward, 2LBCF) notably departs from this language in chapter 7, paragraph 3. What has become known as 1689 Federalism, the dominant covenant theology of the framers of the 2LBCF, denies this assertion over against what we will call Westminster Federalism. Let us see how Bunyan comes down on the question.

First, he makes a total equivalence between the law or the Old Covenant and the Covenant of Works. On page 28 he says, “The covenant of works or the law, here spoken of, is the law delivered upon Mount Sinai to Moses, in two tables of stone, in ten particular branches or heads; for this see Galatians 4.” Similarly, on pages 170-171 he specifically says this from Gal. 4:28-31.

Furthermore, Bunyan argues that the Old Covenant was the Covenant of Works because it had the same conditions as the covenant made with Adam, 

Therefore that which was delivered in two tables of stone on Mount Sinai, is the very same thing that was given before to Adam in Paradise, they running both alike; that in the garden saying, Do this and live; but in the day thou eatest thereof — or dost not do this — thou shalt surely die.

page 34

And on page 32, “the conditions of that on Sinai and of that in the garden are all one; the one saying, ‘Do this and live,’ the other saying the same.” 

He also argues that the Scriptures teach only two covenants, one is called “the administration of death, and the other the administration of life,” the first must correspond to the Covenant of Works, and 2 Corinthians 3:7 calls the Old Covenant the administration of death; therefore, it is the Covenant of Works (33, also compare 29). 

Those familiar with Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress may be reminded of Faithful’s account of being met by the Old Man and then cruelly assaulted by him (69-71). In this passage, Bunyan identifies the Old Man as both “Adam the first” (69) and then as Moses (71). It seems this was not intended as hyperbole. [Thanks to Richard Barcellos for pointing this out to me after the first edition of this post].

There is no doubt where Bunyan stands on this question and it is not with Westminster Federalism. However, Bunyan is not quite with 1689 Federalism either. 1689 Federalism follows the subservient covenant tradition in speaking of the Mosaic Covenant as being a covenant of works with regard to the physical land of Canaan, but not the Covenant of Works made with Adam for eternal salvation. I would point you to Sam Renihan’s book, From Shadow to Substance, to explain this distinction in more detail, but suffice it to say, Bunyan is not in agreement with 1689 Federalism on this point. Also, with reference to the wider subservient covenant tradition, see Lee Irons, “The Subservient Covenant“.

As Samuel Renihan helpfully points out in his book, Reformed Covenant Theology has long wrestled with relating the contrast between the Law and Gospel dogmatically considered with the contrast between the Old and New Covenant eras, or the Law and the Gospel historically considered (18-22). Although very few in the Reformed camp today would agree with Bunyan here, we should remember that the scene was far more diverse at the time Bunyan was writing. Just consult Samuel Bolton in his book, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom, where he sets out four broadly different views on covenant theology current in his day (around the time of the Westminster Assembly) (89-90).

We know that Bunyan was directly and powerfully influenced by Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, even saying,

“I do prefer this book…, excepting the Holy Bible, before all the books that ever I have seen, as most fit for a wounded conscience.”

Works, Vol. I, 22

Therefore, I believe Bunyan is appropriating the dogmatic contrast of the Law and the Gospel, as passed down from Luther, directly and, in my opinion, too flatly to the Old and New Covenants historically considered.

It should be noted that 1689 Federalism was only coming to fruition in the early 1680’s, so this book of Bunyan’s comes more than 20 years earlier. Perhaps Bunyan would have been more nuanced on this question if he had had the opportunity to read his friend John Owen’s commentary on Hebrews before writing this book. We can only wonder.

2. Is the Covenant of Grace Equivalent to the New Covenant?

As for the second question, with 1689 Federalism, Bunyan identifies the New Covenant as the Covenant of Grace. He says “‘In that He saith a new covenant,’ which is the grace of God, or commonly called the Covenant of Grace, ‘He hath made the first old,’ that is the Covenant of Works, or the law (Heb. 8:13)” (26), he again equates the two. Then, on page 86, he insists that all saving grace is “by virtue of the new covenant.” This last part is in keeping with a significant contention of 1689 Federalism, but certainly not unique to it as Brandon Adams has shown on his blog.

3. Is the New Covenant Breakable?

Bunyan thinks that, in contrast with the Old, the New Covenant is unbreakable. Although this is usually proved from Jeremiah 31 with Hebrews 8 (and this was my personal entry point on the road that led to 1689 Federalism), Bunyan actually relies on the Davidic Covenant as expressed in Psalm 89:26-37. Because God will not break is covenant with the Son of David, “His seed also will I make to endure for ever” (165). He concludes with, “the new covenant is not broken by our transgressions, and that because it was not made with us [but with our public person, Jesus Christ, the Son of David]” (166). This is in opposition with the Old Covenant that was broken by the member’s transgressions (Heb. 8:9). This is in agreement with 1689 Federalism.

4. Was the Old Covenant an Administration of the Covenant of Grace?

One point of contention between Westminster Federalism and 1689 Federalism is whether the Old Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace or not. The Westminster view would answer the question in the affirmative and would argue from this fact that the substance of the old covenant is grace just like the new. 1689 Federalism would tend to imply that the Old Covenant, being not of faith (grace), is not an administration of the Covenant of Grace. However, there is not perfect agreement on this question. On which side did Bunyan fall? From this work, it is not entirely clear. In some places, Bunyan seems to imply the the administration of the Old Covenant is far from grace. For instance, on page 49 he says,

… the administration that God doth smile upon His children through, is the Covenant of    Grace, they being in Jesus Christ, the Lord of life and consolation; but contrawise to those that are under the law; for they have His frowns, His rebukes, His threatenings, and with much severity they must be dealt withal.

page 49

And again,

… under the law, which can not, will not, show any mercy on them; for it is not the administration of mercy and life, but the administration of death and destruction, as you have it (2 Corinthians 3:7, 9)

page 55

However, on page 95 he says something that could be construed to the opposite effect. 

“The days come in which I make a new covenant,” it is rather to be meant a changing of the administration, taking away the type, the shadow, the ceremonies…

page 95

Nevertheless, on closer inspection of the context, he is not speaking with the same sense as Westminster Federalism. First, he states something entirely in concert with Renihan’s thesis in From Shadow to Substance, right down to the title,

… these words are therefore to discover that the time was come to change the dispensation, to take away the type, and bring in the substance, and so manifesting that more clearly which before lay hid in dark sayings and figures.

page 95

Notice that the substance does not inhere the type or shadow, but the substance only comes in with the removal of the shadow. The substance is not in the shadow. Again, Bunyan is with 1689 Federalism.

Second, he qualifies the title “new” not because he thinks the old is of the same substance, but because he thinks that what we call the Covenant of Redemption, made before the world began, is the same with the New Covenant (others in his time would agree like the Congregationalist Samuel Petto in his book The Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace and the Baptist Benjamin Keach, see Tom Hicks’ article). For him, the New Covenant, which he also calls the Covenant of Grace, is simply the manifestation of the Covenant of Redemption. Speaking of the covenant made between the Father and the Son before the world began, he says,

… for though the new covenant was made before the world began, and also every one in all ages was saved by the virtue of that covenant, yet that covenant was never so clearly made manifest as at the coming, death, and resurrection of Christ…

page 95

He concludes with saying that “Yet the second Adam was before the first, and the second covenant before the first” (96).

5. When was the Covenant of Grace Established?

Another point of contention between Westminster Federalism and 1689 Federalism is when the covenant of grace is established in time. The Westminster view says it is in Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium or first gospel. 1689 Federalism says that it is first announced and promised there, but is not formally established or sealed (the technical term is promulgated) as a covenant until Christ’s death. Again, Bunyan sides with 1689 Federalism. “They [in old testament times] had only the promise that He should and would come; but we have the assured fulfilling of those promises” (193). Then a little further on, “It [the covenant of grace] was made indeed in their time, but it was not sealed until the time the blood was shed on the Mount Calvary” (194). 

Bunyan’s answers to this and the last question squares up neatly with 2LBCF Chapter 7 “Of God’s Covenant, Para. 3.

6. How Were the Old Testament Saints Saved?

One reason that the Westminster view posits that the Covenant of Grace must be in full force from Genesis 3:15 on is that no one is saved but through this covenant, or to put it another way, no one is saved but by grace and this is only in the Covenant of Grace. Bunyan anticipates this supposed problem and argues that they were saved by Christ’ suretyship in that He would do all that was required of Him to accomplish their salvation. I will quote Bunyan at length,

It was with them and their dispensation as this similitude gives you to understand: Set the case that there be two men who make a covenant that the one should give the other ten thousand sheep on condition the other give him two thousand pound; but forasmuch as the money is not to be paid down presently, therefore if he that buys the sheep will have any of them before the day of payment, the creditor requesteth a surety; and upon the engagement of the surety there is part of the sheep given to the debtor even before the day of payment, but the other at and after. So it is here; Christ covenanted with His Father for His sheep — “I lay down My life for My sheep,” saith He — but the money was not to be paid down so soon as the bargain was made, as I have already said, yet some of the sheep were saved even before the money was paid, and that because of the Surety-ship of Christ; as it is written, “Being justified,” or saved, “freely by His grace through the redemption,” or purchase, “that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,” or the sinners who died in the faith before Christ was crucified, through God’s forbearing till the payment was paid; to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness; “that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Romans 3:24-26) 

pages 194-195

So, we see that the saints of old were saved just as much through the new covenant as we, for both our redemption in the New Testament and theirs in the Old were bought with the blood of the new covenant (Luke 22:20). Again, see Brandon Adams’ resources on this point showing that many others in Church history have held this view.

The book in general

I would be remiss if I did not say a word about Bunyan’s Law and Grace Unfolded as a whole. This is a classic on the great reformed doctrine of law and gospel, a topic that is often botched at points even by the best theologians. However, Bunyan does an admirable job in defining, contrasting, and applying the law and the gospel. There are passages that show Bunyan at his most pastoral and oratorical. Especially rich is his section on the privileges of the new covenant on pages 160-168. Although my topic is polemical, I think those who take the opposing view on covenant theology would find much in this book to their liking and edification. So, I heartily recommend this book. 

However, with this recommendation I would add one caveat, and others, like Spurgeon, have had this same reservation with Bunyan. And in reading his later book, Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, later Bunyan may have had this reservation with earlier Bunyan too. There is a couple places where he leans on the side of preparationism, that is the practice of sending men to the law for awhile until they have a “sufficient” view (who is to say when that is) of their sin and misery before they fly to Christ for salvation. To use one of Bunyan’s own literary creations, it is directing men to the slough of despond first instead of to the cross first. Also, associated with this is the directing of unconverted persons to “wait” on the Lord for salvation instead of commanding them to repent and believe presently as we have Scriptural example. This error, however, does not pervade the whole book, but only crops up in his introduction (16) and again at the end of the book (210). The last place discovers the error of “waiting on the Lord for salvation” for he supports the idea by Psalm 27:13-14, but this is an example of a converted man waiting on the Lord in faith and not an unconverted man waiting on the Lord for faith, and therefore not waiting in faith. In spite of this error, I would still highly recommend reading his book, while keeping this caveat in mind.

Bunyan a Partial Proponent of 1689 Federalism 

On almost every point, Bunyan falls on the side of 1689 Federalism rather than with Westminster Federalism. However, his equating of the Old Covenant with the Covenant of Works is a significant departure from 1689 Federalism. There is also another significant question regarding 1689 Federalism that I have not yet found Bunyan’s answer for. It is, what was the relationship between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Covenant of Grace? Please leave a comment and let me know if you find a place where he addresses this issue directly.

It would be intellectually dishonest to claim Bunyan as a proponent of 1689 Federalism, but it would be accurate to claim him as an ally who has many helpful insights. If nothing else, Bunyan’s Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded is an important piece of historical theology that reveals the intimate and direct connection between the Reformed Law/Gospel Distinction and the bicovenantalism of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.

Works Cited

Adams, Brandon. “OT Saints Were Saved by the New Covenant (Quotes).” Contrast, 10 Feb. 2022, https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/10/25/ot-saints-were-saved-by-the-new-covenant-quotes/. 

Bolton, Samuel. The True Bounds of Christian Freedom. Banner of Truth Trust, 2001. 

Bunyan, John. The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded. Great Christian Books, 2014. 

Bunyan, John. Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ. Banner of Truth, 2018.

Bunyan, John, and William R. Owens. The Pilgrim’s Progress. Oxford Univ. Press, 2008. 

Bunyan, John. The Works of John Bunyan: With an Introduction to Each Treatise, Notes, and a Sketch of His Life, Times, and Contempories. Edited by George Offor, Banner of Truth Trust, 2021. 

Hicks, Tom. “Benjamin Keach’s Covenant Theology and Justification.” Founders Ministries, 27 Dec. 2021, https://founders.org/2016/03/03/benjamin-keachs-covenant-theology-and-justification/. 

Irons, Lee. “The Subservient Covenant: A 17th Century Precursor of Meredith Kline’s View of the Mosaic Covenant.” Upper-Register, https://upper-register.com/papers/subservient_cov.pdf. 

Petto, Samuel. The Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace: Or, the Difference between the Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained. Tentmaker Publications, 2007. 

Renihan, Samuel D. From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704). Centre for Baptist History and Heritage, Regent’s Park College, 2018.