Are baptism and communion means of grace?

"Besides this, there is the subjective aspect: a certain consciousness of personal interest in these truths, and a sense of general unworthiness, and a further sense of the removal of that unworthiness, in the belief and apprehension of these truths — the whole matter of salvation being a personal one between the individual and CHRIST the SAVIOUR; and that, for purposes of mutual edification and advantage, it is expedient that individuals should unite into distinct bodies or communities, appoint their own teachers, frame their own terms of communion, and administer their own ordinances. Admitting for the most part — not universally — the divine authority of the two greater sacraments, a form of baptism is used, and a form of communion in bread and wine; but these are not really sacramental in the sense that the church holds them, as means of grace to the recipients; but rather as seals and pledges of grace already given, outward signs of GOD'S SPIRIT already bestowed on the part of GOD; and signs of faith in His promises, or rather the fulfilment of His promises, on the part of the recipient." (Pages 183, 184.)

I deny entirely what is called sacramental grace. That we are blessed in communion with Christ, in partaking in the faith of the Lord's supper, I gladly recognize. He is present with two or three, gathered together in His name, in that special and blessed remembrance of His death according to His grace; in which He in sovereign goodness cares that we should remember Him. The soul enjoys fellowship with Him, and in the most excellent way. But it is not grace in the elements. I do not believe there is any grace in the bread or the wine. It is a mere mischievous superstition. There is in scripture no consecration of elements, though they are appropriated with thanksgiving; since they are to represent Christ's body and blood, and hence to be reverently used in doing so, "discerning the Lord's body." But what we break is bread, and nothing else. The history even of the progress to Romanist views is easily traced, though of no importance. We must have "what was from the beginning," or else not abide in the Son and in the Father.

The common factor of these two signs is that they both speak of death. Baptism reminds us of the death of Jesus Christ for us, with which we are identified. The Breaking of Bread also reminds us of the Lord’s death every first day of the week. He gave His life for us, so that we can pass from death unto life. Another thing that both signs have in common is that they have neither a secret nor a mystical power. The actions themselves are and remain outward actions. They do not effect any change in our inner person. We do not become different persons either through baptism or by participating in the Breaking of Bread. No-one will enter heaven simply on the ground of his having been baptized or having taken part in the Breaking of Bread. Both signs are outward signs; however, they have a profound spiritual significance.

Beside these similarities certain distinctions between baptism and the Breaking of Bread are obvious. Two important differences are:

It can scarcely be necessary to observe that circumcision and the passover were types, whilst baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbols; and symbols only. The type looks forward, and is prophetic; the symbol, as it were, looks back, and is figuratively expressive of a known truth, i.e., is historical. The two sacraments, viz., baptism and the Lord's Supper, are of similar import to circumcision (which signified the cutting off of the flesh), and the passover (which was typical of the expiatory death of Christ); but, the atonement having taken place, Christians commemorate the Lord's Supper in the blessing of accomplished redemption, and hence it has to them the character of the peace-offering. But the sacraments are not operative and efficacious in themselves. Whilst in the Lord's Sapper we have communion with the Lord as to His death, and its value to us, nevertheless one main object of the sacrament is to mark off and separate the Christian profession from non-Christianity, and that by signs significative of Christ's death.

Once more, baptism is a refreshment to Faith. While we are made up of body and soul as we are, we shall need some means by which the body shall sometimes be stirred up to co-work with the soul. In the Lord's Supper my faith is assisted by the outward and visible sign. In the bread and in the wine I see no superstitious mystery, I see nothing but bread and wine, but in that bread and wine I do see to my faith an assistant. Through the sign my faith sees the thing signified. So in baptism there is no mysterious efficacy in the baptistry or in the water. We attach no reverence to the one or to the other, but we do see in the water and in the baptism such an assistance as brings home to our faith most manifestly our being buried with Christ, and our rising again in newness of life with him.

Nor are we sacramentalists because we cannot grant this (C. 21). Our brother may find, if he please to look, whether in the Episcopal prayer-book, or the Westminster Confession of Faith, that a sacrament is understood to be an ordinance that conveys the grace it signifies. Thus if baptism is figuratively (as they hold) "the washing of regeneration," it imparts this grace — it regenerates. This, assuredly, I do not hold. And yet I do hold that there is a congruity between the figurative meaning and what is accomplished by the baptismal act.

But I must prove my statements as to Dr. O'Brien. First, the change of terms on which the whole argument depends, and the petitio principii involving the whole question. "All who believe baptism to be a sacrament must believe that what is outward and visible is connected with something inward and invisible, that what is material is connected with something spiritual - not merely as an outward, but as an effectual sign thereof: that is, a sign by which, or through which, as the channel or means or instrument (whether sole or concurrent) these inward or spiritual effects are wrought." Why so? Because that is the definition of a sacrament (which is not a scriptural word) given in the system which is attacked as false. A sacrament, in the catechism which teaches baptismal regeneration so called, is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us as a means whereby we receive the same. Of course, if a sacrament confers the grace of which it is a sign, so that it is an effectual sign, it does confer it. If I call it a sacrament (and a sacrament means conferring the grace and I must add, if this be the grace signified), the grace is conferred.

There is no telling what theological teaching may bring the mind into - making God out of a piece of flour and eternal life out of a bowl of water! Charge me not with irreverence. The irreverence is in those who invent such superstitions. The expression of "making God" is the commonest and usual expression for transubstantiation; and conferring eternal life by a little water is discussed in Luther's Catechism and taught in the English one, of course in the Roman, and, as I shall now shew, in the Presbyterian. "A sacrament is a holy ordinance, instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed and applied to believers." Thus the benefits of the new covenant are applied by the sacrament. In the Confession of Faith it is limited to the elect, and that in a very definite way. "Yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's will, in His appointed time." Nothing can be plainer than that. By the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is conferred by the Holy Ghost when God sees fit "in His appointed time." Nothing can be more definite, precise, and positive.

Then, again, they take obedience as a basis, and subject us to an ordinance as duty of obedience. The principle of being required to obey an ordinance Christianity rejects, because it makes an act of the outer man a condition for entering into the enjoyment of the privileges of grace. … Baptism is a privilege granted, which admits into the number of the faithful and into the great house. According to the Baptists' principle the apostles ought not to have partaken of the Lord's supper, for they had not been baptised; nor could they have been, for there was no one to baptise them. That would evidently be an absurdity, but according to the Baptists' system, such an inference would be necessary. Again, they pretend the sacraments to be signs and seals of things received - a principle which is false. I do not partake of the Lord's supper as a sign that I have eaten Christ, but I eat Him there - I drink there His blood in the sign. Moreover, the word is very precise - one is buried into death through baptism; so that their doctrine in reference to these precepts is quite false.

Baptism has absolutely nothing to do with the work of salvation, but is the confession of Christ's death as our own, just as His resurrection is the ground of our justification (Rom.4:25). The bread and the wine surely do not save us, but they speak to us of a Saviour that did. If baptism were a saving ordinance, then men could save themselves just whenever they chose—surely a false impression. No! His work and His alone did that (1 Pet.2:24).