Jabez Chadwick on Christian Baptism

[PaulMc]

I wondered if anyone has read Jabez Chadwick's book New Light on the subject of Christian Baptism(1832), and if so what do you make of his arguments?

He presents a number of arguments that I have not encountered before. I will try and summarise the basic points made:

- That John the Baptist's baptism was only of adults (as a baptism of repentance), and that this is informative of baptism to come

- That Christ and His disciples' baptism was Christian baptism, and as John, only baptized adults, and that this is authoritative of apostolic baptism. He argues this from the new covenant time having started during Jesus' ministry, ie the Kingdom of Heaven already having come

- He argues that the above point is proved by the fact that the disciples tried to hinder the little children coming to Him (ie if infants had been brought for baptism, they would not have forbidden them in Matt 19:13 etc)

- That the Abrahamic covenant is still in force (separately from the new covenant) along with it's signs and seals (shown from believing Jews in Acts seemingly still circumcising their children, and circumcision not being part of the old covenant that is done away, Heb 8) and therefore baptism is not a replacement of any kind for circumcision, and in no way a seal of the new covenant.

The last point in particular, on the Abrahamic covenant, I have not come across in discussions with reformed baptists.
I would appreciate any thoughts/comments, especially from those who have read the book (though when searching I couldn't find anything on PB at all on Jabez Chadwick, but hopefully some here have read it!).

The book can be read here:
New Light on the Subject of Christian Baptism : Jabez Chadwick : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Thanks in advance.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sounds like something of a "fringe" view, to me.

In my opinion, anything that smacks of maintaining divisions between members of God's people (singular), such as a "Jewish" division, and a "Gentile" division, has made a fatal error. And it seems as if this author has done just that. He may have been an early Darbyite, or influenced by that school (though JNDarby was a lifelong paedobaptist, I believe), or partaking of the same influences that brought Darby to his conclusions.

In any case, the middle wall of partition has been demolished, Eph.2:14; the Gentiles are no longer "outside" the commonwealth of Israel, v12.

Paul is, therefore, adamantly opposed to any religious (covenantal) continuation of circumcision for the (whole) church. His polemic against forcing the Gentiles to adopt Moses' covenant, in order to become fully Christian--the subject of Galatians--is no less applicable to Jews who insist on an Abrahamic circumcision by way of covenant-compliance. The purpose for Abraham's covenant has been realized, and the New Covenant begun. If Gentiles are now sons of Abraham without circumcision, but by faith, then the Jews are also by the same token--and no other.

It is pernicious to any more maintain that circumcision is "by covenant" until this day, even solely among the physical seed of Abraham. This perpetuates a religious, covenantal divide among men, which the New Covenant is intended to abolish forever. Let historic and cultural traditions abide--even circumcision--so long as they are not pretended as obedience to God.

 

[PaulMc]

In my opinion, anything that smacks of maintaining divisions between members of God's people (singular), such as a "Jewish" division, and a "Gentile" division, has made a fatal error. And it seems as if this author has done just that.

Thank you for your thoughts - I agree, especially on this.

What would you say to the other arguments, particularly the third point as it relates to the second?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

His first point makes the tendentious claim that, as "repentance" is an intentional (thus mature) act, that no one but adults were baptized by John. I don't know what the author's attitude toward "mode" is, but he may also be making a "pragmatic" as well as philosophical argument here (i.e., that John was necessarily dunking the volunteer-participants). Mt.3:5 and Mk.1:5 are rather broad-sweeping designations, which still leaves a good many persons out of participation no doubt (cf. Lk.7:30), but excluding the little-ones seems preferentially selective to me.

So the second point is simply an extension of the first, and confirms his own conclusions.

As to the third, I would just say, that making a positive theological point predicated on what is arguably one of the most egregious errors the disciples ever made (the only time Jesus is ever reported to be INDIGNANT with them, Mk.10:14) is extraordinary, to say the least. All the more audacious, when this same episode has so often been used (esp. Lk.18:15-16) as support for the propriety of baptizing the infants, seeing as that, according to Christ, the kingdom of heaven contains just such persons.