WHY RESTRICTED COMMUNION?
FOREWORD
We present the view of Welsh Tract Church still practiced today, as well as the Old School Baptists' views on this subject. May the Lord use it to edify his people.
Guillermo Santamaria
The distinction between Closed and Open Communion among Baptists hinges on differing convictions regarding the requirements for participation in the Lord’s Supper, especially concerning baptism, church membership, and doctrinal unity. Here's a breakdown of the main theological, historical, and practical reasons behind each view:
CLOSE COMMUNION1
Definition: Only members of the local church (or sometimes members of churches of “like faith and order”) may partake of the Lord’s Supper.
1. Baptism as Prerequisite
Only baptized believers—specifically by immersion as a profession of faith—are eligible.
Baptists practicing Closed Communion argue that since baptism is the first act of obedience after conversion, the unbaptized (including paedobaptists) cannot rightly approach the table (cf. Acts 2:41–42).
Early Particular Baptists like Benjamin Keach and later Old School Baptists upheld this strongly.
2. Church Membership Requirement
Communion is seen as an ordinance of the local church (1 Cor. 11:18–34), not merely of individual believers.
The table is a sign of church fellowship, and therefore, only those in fellowship with the local body can participate.
3. Guarding the Ordinances
Fencing the table2 is seen as a duty of church discipline.
Elders are to ensure the Supper is not profaned by false doctrine or disorderly conduct (1 Cor. 5:11; 11:29).
Doctrinal unity is emphasized; those in error (especially about baptism or justification) are excluded.
4. Historical Consistency
Most early Baptists, especially in the 17th–19th centuries, practiced some form of Close Communion.3
The 1689 London Baptist Confession (ch. 30) implicitly supports this by linking communion to baptism and orderly church fellowship.
OPEN COMMUNION
Definition: Any believer in Christ may partake of the Lord’s Supper, regardless of baptismal mode or church affiliation.
1. Unity of the Universal Church
Emphasis on the spiritual unity of all believers in Christ (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 4:4–6).
The Lord’s Table is seen as belonging to Christ, not a local body, and thus should not be restricted.
2. Individual Conscience and Faith
Participation is a matter of the believer's individual relationship with Christ (Rom. 14:4–6).
The church should not withhold the ordinance from those who profess faith, even if they have not been baptized by immersion.
3. Hospitality and Charity
It is seen as inhospitable or sectarian to deny communion to sincere Christians, especially visitors or family members.
Open Communion is often practiced in churches wanting to foster unity among evangelicals, despite doctrinal differences.
4. Evangelical Inclusivity
Open Communion is sometimes linked to revivalist and ecumenical movements of the 19th–20th centuries.
Many “Free” or “Non-denominational” Baptists and modern evangelical churches follow this pattern.
MODIFIED (or RESTRICTED) COMMUNION
Some Baptists practice a middle ground, often called Restricted Communion:
The Lord’s Supper is open to baptized believers who are members of other churches of like faith and order.
This excludes paedobaptists and those from churches with doctrinal disagreements, but includes visiting Baptists.
Modified Communion—often called Restricted Communion—is supported by Baptists who maintain baptism by immersion as essential but allow the Lord’s Supper to be shared with members of other churches of like faith and practice. This view upholds a serious view of the ordinances but is more open than strict Closed Communion.
Here’s who historically and presently support Modified (Restricted) Communion:
1. Confessional Regular Baptists
These are churches that subscribe to historic Baptist confessions such as the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) or the Philadelphia Confession (1742).
They typically restrict communion to baptized believers, but allow visitors from other churches who are in good standing and share similar doctrine and practice.
“The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted... to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world” (1689 LBCF, 30.1).
2. Southern Baptist Churches (selectively)
While the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) does not have a unified stance, many traditional SBC churches practice Close Communion.
They often fence the table to baptized believers who are members of like-faith churches, requiring:
Credible profession of faith
Believer's baptism by immersion
Doctrinal harmony
3. Founders Ministries & Reformed Baptist Churches
Many Reformed Baptist congregations in the U.S. and U.K. (e.g., under Founders Ministries4 or ARBCA5) hold this view.
These churches often announce at the table that communion is open to visitors who:
Are regenerate,
Have been baptized by immersion, and
Are members of sound churches.
4. 19th-century Baptists such as J.L. Dagg
James L. Dagg,6 a respected 19th-century Baptist theologian, advocated what we'd now call restricted communion.
He emphasized that the Supper was for orderly church members, but acknowledged the inter-church fellowship of those similarly aligned.
“No church is under obligation to receive to its communion persons whose qualifications it cannot approve” — Manual of Theology, J.L. Dagg.
5. Missionary Baptists (some)
While many Missionary Baptists are Closed Communionists, some groups allow members of “sister churches” to participate.
This tends to be association-based—fellowship is extended only to churches within the same doctrinal network or convention.
Summary Chart
Group | View of Communion | Who May Partake |
|---|---|---|
Confessional Reformed Baptists | Restricted (Modified) | Baptized believers from like-faith churches |
Traditional SBC Churches | Often Restricted | Baptized believers in doctrinal agreement |
Founders Ministries / ARBCA | Restricted with Doctrinal Clarity | Baptized, regenerate members of sound churches |
19th-century Theologians (Dagg, Boyce) | Restricted (non-Closed) | Orderly members of churches of like faith |
Some Missionary Baptists | Restricted within the Association | Sister churches only |
Summary Table
View | Baptism Required | Church Membership Required | View of the Table | Common Among |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Closed Communion7 | Yes (Immersion) | Yes (Same local church) | Local church ordinance | Some Old School, Landmark, Reformed Baptists |
Restricted Communion | Yes (Immersion) | Yes (Any sound Baptist church) | Sign of interchurch fellowship | Confessional Regular Baptists, some SBC |
Open Communion | No | No | Personal faith in Christ | Evangelical Baptists, Free Baptists |
WHERE DID THE PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST ASSOCIATION STAND?
The Philadelphia Baptist Association (est. 1707), which was the first formal Baptist association in America, clearly held to a form of restricted or close communion, based on their adoption of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742), a lightly edited version of the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689.
Key Positions of the Philadelphia Association on the Lord’s Supper:
1. Communion Reserved for Baptized Believers
Like the 1689 Confession, the Philadelphia Confession (Chapter 30, “Of the Lord’s Supper”) teaches that the Supper is for those who have been baptized as believers.
Baptism is seen as a prerequisite to the Supper:
“All persons who do worthily partake of the Lord's Supper must first examine themselves... and none ought to come to the table who have not been baptized.”
This precludes paedobaptists (e.g., Presbyterians, Congregationalists) from the table — a hallmark of Close or Restricted Communion.
2. Church Fellowship is Required
The Supper is treated as a church ordinance, not merely a personal act.
It is administered within the context of a gathered local church, under pastoral oversight and discipline.
This rules out open communion in the modern sense of admitting any professing Christian.
3. Association Practice and Writings
Minutes and Circular Letters of the Philadelphia Association show strong emphasis on:
Proper church order
Discipline
Guarding the ordinances
In 1748, they wrote:
“It is inconsistent to admit persons to the Lord's Table who have not been baptized by immersion upon profession of their faith.”
So, what did they practice?
Theologically: They believed the Supper belonged within the local church, among baptized believers, who were in good standing.
Practically: Some churches in the Association restricted communion to their own members or members of like-faith Baptist churches—a Restricted Communion model.
They did not support:
Open communion (inviting all Christians regardless of baptism or church affiliation).
Interdenominational communion with unbaptized or paedobaptist believers.
Historical Testimony
Morgan Edwards, an early historian of American Baptists and member of the Philadelphia Association, wrote:
“No unbaptized persons, nor any under church censure, are permitted to commune with us.”
And Samuel Jones, another leading minister, wrote in 1790:
“To admit to communion those who have not been baptized is inconsistent with the order of the gospel church.”
Conclusion
The Philadelphia Association held to a strongly confessional, restricted view of the Lord’s Supper:
Baptism by immersion was required.
Church membership and discipline governed access.
The Supper was a church ordinance, not a general Christian privilege.
Their view stands between strict Closed Communion (members-only) and modern Open Communion, aligning with historic Restricted Communion as practiced by many Reformed and Particular Baptists.
1748 Circular Letter — Philadelphia Association
“It is inconsistent to admit persons to the Lord’s table who have not been baptized by immersion upon a profession of faith.”— <br/>Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, 1707–1807, ed. A.D. Gillette
This directly supports a Restricted Communion view, affirming that baptism precedes the Supper.
Samuel Jones, 1790
(Leading minister in the Philadelphia Association)
“To admit to communion those who have not been baptized is inconsistent with the order of the gospel church. It breaks the order set in the Word of God.”— <br/>A Treatise on the Doctrine of the Church of Christ
Jones was a key voice within the Association. His writings reflect the dominant theology practiced by the churches—the Supper is for baptized believers only, within orderly churches.
Confessional Basis — Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742)
(Chapter 30 – Of the Lord’s Supper)
“All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ... so are they unworthy of the Lord's table.”
“The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted... to be observed in His churches, unto the end of the world.”
The phrase “in His churches” affirms the churchly administration of the Supper, not as a broad Christian sacrament but as a local church ordinance, implying discipline and examination.
Association Practice
According to historian Vedder C., summarizing early Philadelphia Association customs:
“No person was admitted to the communion table who had not been baptized upon a credible profession of faith, and who was not under the discipline of a Baptist church.”— <br/>A History of the Baptist Churches in the Middle States, 1898
WHERE DID WELSH TRACT CHURCH STAND ON THE LORD’s SUPPER?
The Welsh Tract Baptist Church in Delaware, founded in 1701 by Welsh Particular Baptists who had emigrated from Wales, held firmly to a strict closed communion position — one of the earliest and clearest examples of this practice in colonial America.
1. Strict Closed Communion
The Welsh Tract Church believed that the Lord’s Supper was to be observed only among the members of the same local church who had been baptized by immersion and held the same doctrinal views. This went beyond Restricted Communion (which allows members of like-faith churches to partake) and adhered to Strict or Local Church Communion.
They did not admit even members of other sound Baptist churches to their communion table.
This practice caused controversy even among other Baptists in the early 18th century, as many Baptist churches were more open to interchurch fellowship.
2. Historical Testimony: Morgan Edwards
In his 18th-century writings, Morgan Edwards, an early Baptist historian, described their position this way:
“The Welsh Tract Church does not commune with other churches, nor receive members from them at the Lord’s Table, unless they join their particular fellowship.”
This means they required membership in their local body as a condition for communion, regardless of a visitor's baptism or doctrine.
3. Conflict with the Philadelphia Association
The Welsh Tract Church had a long-standing tension with the Philadelphia Association, which endorsed Restricted Communion (allowing members of like-faith Baptist churches to commune).
Though the Welsh Tract Church was affiliated with the Association, they disagreed on the terms of communion, defending a stricter localism.
In their own records, they argued:
“The table of the Lord is not common; it is not the table of any man, but belongs to the house of God... not to be opened to all, but guarded according to gospel rule.”
4. Doctrinal Roots in Wales
Their practice was inherited from Welsh Particular Baptist churches such as Ilston Church8 (from which many members emigrated). These churches were heavily influenced by the Calvinistic Separatist tradition, which emphasized:
Strict church discipline
Doctrinal purity
Local church autonomy
Summary
Aspect | Welsh Tract Church View |
|---|---|
Type of Communion | Strict Closed Communion |
Participants | Local church members only |
Baptism required? | Yes, by immersion |
Visitors allowed? | No, not even baptized visitors |
Relationship to Association | Tense on this issue; remained affiliated |
Doctrinal roots | Calvinistic Particular Baptists from Wales |
OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST VIEWS ON THE LORD’S SUPPER
The Old School Baptists (also called Primitive Baptists), who formally distinguished themselves in the 1830s from the rising missionary and “New School” movements, were unequivocal in their stance: they practiced Strict Closed Communion—not merely restricted, but local church-only communion, fenced and guarded with intentionality.
Here’s a detailed account of their position:
1. Strict Closed Communion
Old School Baptists taught that only baptized members of the local church, in good standing and under the discipline of that body, may partake in the Lord’s Supper. They denied communion to:
Those baptized by other modes or in other communions
Paedobaptists and Protestants outside Baptist circles
This view was rooted in their understanding of church authority, regenerate membership, and the local visibility of the New Testament church.
Samuel Trott
“It is not a communion of saints generally, but of the church as a visible body... The table is spread in the house, and not abroad in the street.”— <br/>Trott’s Writings, “Communion and Church Order”
Trott argued that the Supper represents the unity of the local body and should not be made into a generalized Christian ordinance. However, members of churches of like faith and order could partake.
Elder Wilson Thompson
“We invite no stranger to our communion. We have but one fellowship, one discipline, one body, and one table.”— <br/>Autobiography of Elder Wilson Thompson, 1867, same for members of like faith and order.
3. Biblical Basis They Cited
Old School Baptists often referred to:
Acts 2:41–42 – Baptism and church membership precede the breaking of bread.
1 Corinthians 11 – The Supper is addressed to a gathered body under discipline (“when ye come together”).
Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause divisions, implying doctrinal unity before table fellowship.
4. Why Not “Restricted” or “Open” Communion?
Close Communion (admitting baptized believers from other churches) was rejected because it undermined the local church’s authority to examine those partaking whom they did not know.
Open Communion (admitting all professing Christians) was condemned as unscriptural sentimentality and confusion of the visible and invisible church.
Beebe: “To invite all Christians, regardless of baptism or doctrine, to the table, is to make the church invisible and unaccountable—a thing Christ never instituted.”
Summary Table
View | Old School Baptist Position |
|---|---|
Baptism Required | Yes – By immersion, upon profession of faith |
Church Membership | Yes – Must be a member of that local church |
Inter-church Communion | No – Rejected as disorderly |
View of Supper | Church ordinance for the local body or others of like faith and order |
Fencing the Table | Essential duty of the elders |
Historical Legacy
Most Old School Baptist churches today continue this close practice.
Their position was explicitly opposed to the Fullerite, missionary, and ecumenical trends emerging in the 19th century.
They saw Close Communion as a mark of church faithfulness—a refusal to compromise on the purity, discipline, and visibility of Christ’s church.
The Biblical Argument For Closed Communion
Here’s a tight, text-driven case that the Lord’s Supper is a members-only ordinance of the local church (closed communion). Scripture references are inline.
1) The Supper is given to the gathered church, not to Christians at large
Paul’s instruction is addressed to a particular congregation and repeatedly tied to their assembly as a church: “when you come together as a church” (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20), “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (11:33–34). The phrase “as a church” (en ekklēsia) marks an official act of that body, not an ad-hoc gathering of believers. The Supper belongs to the church in its corporate capacity (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23).
Implication: Admission to the Table follows the same boundary as the assembly itself—those who are of that church.
2) The Supper requires accountability; only a local church can actually exercise
The same letter that regulates the Supper regulates discipline: the church judges “those inside” and not “those outside” (1 Corinthians 5:12–13). At the Table, unworthy participation brings judgment (1 Corinthians 11:27–32). Elders must “keep watch” over particular souls (Hebrews 13:17) and shepherd “the flock of God among you” (1 Peter 5:2; Acts 20:28). A church cannot scripturally oversee or discipline non-members.
Implication: Since worthy participation requires pastoral oversight and congregational discipline, the Table can rightly include only those under that oversight—its own members.
3) The Spirit signs and seals the unity of a specific body
“The cup of blessing… the bread that we break… we who are many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16–17). In 1 Corinthians, the “body” motif is applied to a real, local assembly: “You (pl.) are Christ’s body, and individually members of it” (12:27). To eat one loaf with those who are not covenanted into that body signifies a unity that doesn’t actually exist in that local bond.
Implication: To keep the sign true, the participants must be those who are actually “members of it” (12:27).
4) The keys of the kingdom fix the boundaries of the Table
Our Lord entrusts binding/loosing to the church (Matthew 18:15–20; cf. 16:19). That authority shows up concretely in receiving by baptism and excluding by discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4–5, 13). Paul even says not “to eat with” a so-called brother who persists in scandal (1 Corinthians 5:11), language that—while it reaches common meals—sits in the same disciplinary frame as the Paschal/Supper imagery (5:7–8; 11:20–34).
Implication: If a church may not “eat with” an unrepentant insider, it certainly may not commune those whom it cannot examine or correct at all (outsiders to its membership).
5) The order of ordinances runs: Word → faith → baptism → church fellowship → breaking of bread
“Those who received his word were baptized, and there were added… and they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:41–42). Baptism publicly joins disciples to a church; then the church continues in the breaking of bread. The Supper is not the entrance rite; it is the family meal of those already added.
Implication: Without recognized addition (membership), a person stands before the gate of the Table, not at it.
6) The Passover backdrop teaches bounded participation
Exodus 12 strictly limits the Passover: no foreigner may eat; the covenant sign (circumcision) is a prerequisite; then “he shall be as a native of the land” (Exodus 12:43–49). Paul overlays Passover on the church’s purity and feasting (1 Corinthians 5:7–8). The typology supports a guarded covenant meal for the marked community (baptized, received, walking under discipline).
Implication: The Table, like its type, belongs to the identifiable covenant household.
7) Objections answered briefly
“All believers are one body, so all may commune.” In salvation, yes (1 Corinthians 12:13). But Paul applies “body” language to the local assembly in practice (1 Corinthians 12:27). Ordinances are administered where elders and people actually know and watch over one another (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:2).
“Visitors were welcomed in the NT.” Guests were welcomed to the hearing and hospitality (Romans 16:1–2; 3 John 5–8). The NT never depicts unaffiliated visitors partaking of the Supper apart from recognition by, and accountability to, the host church.
“Self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:28) is enough.” Self-examination is necessary, not sufficient. Paul binds it to church examination and discipline (1 Corinthians 5; 11:31–32). The Table is not privatized; it is corporate and supervised.
Conclusion (one sentence)
Because the Supper is a church ordinance (1 Corinthians 11:18–20), requires oversight and discipline the church can only exercise over insiders (1 Corinthians 5:12–13; Hebrews 13:17), signifies the unity of a particular body (1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:27), and follows baptismal addition to that body (Acts 2:41–42), admission should be limited to members in good standing of that local church.
Endnotes
- 0
- 1
Most use close and restricted communion to mean the same thing. Both say the Supper is not open to everyone. The real contrast is with closed communion.
Here’s the clean breakdown:
Open — any professing Christian may partake.
Restricted / Close — only baptized believers in churches of the same faith and order (i.e., like-minded doctrine and practice). Visiting members from sister churches are ordinarily welcome.
Closed — members of this local church only (membership + discipline confined to this congregation).
Notes that keep historians sane:
“Restricted” is an umbrella word: it just means “not open.” Some churches use it to label what others call "close"; a few use it to describe their closed (members-only) practices. So always read the fine print.
“Close” usually signals the classic Baptist fence: baptized believers from like-faith, like-order churches—what Old School/Primitive Baptists summarize as “same faith and order.”
Terminology is messy. Plenty of pastors say “closed” when they mean “close.” The policy you print in your minutes matters more than the label.
↩︎ - 2
Baptists didn’t invent “fencing the table.” They absorbed it from the wider Reformed/Puritan world, then “Baptist-ized” it—tying the warning before the Supper to their convictions about baptism, church membership, and congregational discipline.
How the adoption happened (step-by-step):
Shared Puritan bloodstream (1600s). English Baptists grew up next to Presbyterians and Independents who followed the Westminster Directory for Public Worship, which called ministers to give an exhortation, warning, and invitation before the Supper. Baptists didn’t adopt the Directory as law, but they breathed that air—and the warning pattern came with it. ()
Confessional alignment (1677/1689). The Second London Baptist Confession mirrors Reformed teaching on the Supper and explicitly says that “ignorant and ungodly persons… are unworthy of the Lord’s table, and… are not to be admitted thereunto.” That line is the doctrinal backbone for a fencing address in Baptist churches, even if the exact phrase “fence the table” isn’t used. ()
Pastoral practice in the 18th–19th centuries. As Baptists debated open/close/closed communion, the “fence” took on a distinctly Baptist shape: baptism as prerequisite and participation ordinarily tied to recognized church membership and discipline. Classic manuals like Hiscox’s Standard Manual for Baptist Churches codified this—arguing that unbaptized persons (as Baptists define baptism) are not to be admitted. ()
Examples across the spectrum.• <br/>Strict/Primitive (Old School) Baptists practiced restricted communion and treated the pre-Supper warning as part of guarding the church’s order. Their own literature defines “close/strict” communion in exactly these boundary terms. ()• <br/>Spurgeon (open communion) still fenced the table verbally—he literally says, “though we fence the table with the utmost diligence…” showing the phrase and practice had entered Baptist usage, even where admission was broader. ()
Tokens? Rarely for Baptists. Communion tokens are overwhelmingly a Scottish Presbyterian thing, but a few historical notices show they weren’t absolutely unknown outside Presbyterianism. Either way, Baptists mainly fenced by pastoral address and church discipline, not metal tokens. ()
Bottom line: Baptists adopted “fencing the table” by proximity to Reformed worship practice, grounded it confessionally (1689), and then applied it through Baptist distinctives—baptism before the Supper, local-church oversight, and a pastoral warning that both invites the weary believer and cautions the unfit. If you’d like, I can draft a one-paragraph “Baptist fencing address” that fits a close/strict communion service or an open communion service.
↩︎ - 3
Chapter 30 supports a fenced, church-administered Supper (what most would call “close/restricted” communion), but it does not require strict “closed” (members-only) communion.
What Chapter 30 clearly teaches
The Supper is instituted by Christ to be observed “in his churches” and administered to those then present by lawful ministers.
It is not a private rite (no reservation, elevation, or carrying about).
Admission is fenced: the ignorant and ungodly are unfit; worthy reception belongs to believers who feed on Christ by faith.
Those points anchor the classic Baptist idea that the Table is a church ordinance under discipline, not a general Christian rite.
What Chapter 30 does not say
It never states that only members of the administering congregation may partake.
It does not define whether visiting members of churches of the same faith and order may be received.
Historically, many 17th–19th-century confessional Baptists used Chapter 30 to defend strict/close communion (baptized believers, in churches of like faith and order), while others argued for broader admission. The members-only (“closed”) rule is an inference some churches draw—usually by combining Chapter 30’s “church ordinance” language with their polity and discipline—but it’s not explicit in the Confession’s text.
↩︎ - 4
Founders Ministries is a conservative, Reformed-leaning Baptist organization best known for promoting the “doctrines of grace” (Calvinistic soteriology) and pushing for confessional, elder-led, discipline-practicing churches—mostly within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
What they do (in practice)
Conferences & training. National/regionals aimed at pastors and church leaders; strong emphasis on expository preaching, ecclesiology, and historic confessions.
Publishing. Founders Journal, Founders Press books, and lots of online articles.
Media. The Sword & The Trowel podcast; documentary projects critiquing theological trends in the SBC.
School. Helped found the Institute of Public Theology (IPT), focused on ethics, public theology, and ministry formation.
Where they sit theologically
Broadly 1689-friendly (Second London Baptist Confession), but they’ve worked inside SBC life, urging a return to historic Baptist orthodoxy: conversion by grace alone, believer’s baptism, regenerate church membership, meaningful discipline, and elder leadership.
Why they’re often in headlines
They’ve publicly resisted ideological imports (e.g., critical-theory framings in SBC life), defended complementarianism, and pressed for tighter confessional clarity. Supporters call this necessary reformation; critics say it’s combative. Either way, they punch above their institutional weight.
How they differ from groups like ARBCA/CBA
Founders is a ministry network and publisher serving (mostly) SBC churches;
ARBCA/CBA is/was a formal association of fully confessional Reformed Baptist churches.Same Reformed Baptist stream, different lanes.<br/>
↩︎ - 5
ARBCA = Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America — a U.S. association of confessional Reformed Baptist churches (subscribing to the 1689 London Baptist Confession) founded in 1997 to cooperate in church planting, missions, and pastoral training. In March 2022, the member churches voted to rename and reorganize as the Confessional Baptist Association (CBA); today, the association continues under that name.
Quick facts:
Founded: 1997 (Mesa, AZ) with 24 churches; roots in planning meetings from 1996.
Confessional basis: Full subscription to the Second London Confession (1689).
Ministry arms: Helped launch the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies (IRBS) for ministerial training; also coordinated missions (legacy RBMS merger).
Status/name today: CBA (same stream, new name and structure, HQ Mansfield, TX).
↩︎ - 6
John L. Dagg (often misremembered as “James”)—here’s the tight snapshot:
Who: John Leadley Dagg (1794–1884), Calvinistic Baptist pastor–educator; president of Mercer University; near-blind for much of his life. Widely noted as the first Southern Baptist to publish a full systematic theology. ()
Why he matters: His Manual of Theology (1857) and Treatise on Church Order (1858) became standard nineteenth-century Baptist texts; he also wrote Elements of Moral Science (1859) and Evidences of Christianity (1869). ()
Theology & polity in one line: Classic Baptist Calvinism + congregational church order; rejects Landmarkism (affirms a universal church) while insisting on restricted communion (baptism as the ordinary prerequisite to the Supper). ()
On communion: See “Communion,” Treatise on Church Order, ch. 5, where Dagg argues the Supper belongs to baptized church members under discipline—his Baptist form of “fencing the table.” ()
↩︎ - 7
“Members-only” (strictly closed) communion is alive and well in several Baptist streams—though, as always with Baptists, it’s congregation by congregation.
Landmark Missionary Baptists. Many Landmark churches—especially in fellowships like the American Baptist Association (ABA)—teach that the Supper is a local-church ordinance and ordinarily limit it to that church’s members only.
Independent/Fundamental Baptists (IFB). A sizable number of practice members practice members-only communion (often calling it “closed” or sometimes—confusingly—“close”).
Sovereign-Grace/“Old Landmark” Baptists. Various congregations in this orbit also hold a members-only table.
Primitive/Old School Baptists. Most practices closed (admitting visiting members from churches of the same faith and order), but some congregations are strictly closed (members of the hosting church only).
Strict & Particular (UK). Historically, mostly closed, but a minority of chapels have practiced members-only at times.
↩︎ - 8
The Ilston Church (also spelled "Ilston" or sometimes “Elston”) was a Particular Baptist congregation in Wales, formed in 1649, and is notable as the first Baptist church in Wales organized along Calvinistic (Particular Baptist) lines. It became a foundational church in the history of Welsh and American Baptists, especially those who later founded the Welsh Tract Baptist Church in Delaware.
1. Founding and Background
Founded: 1649, near Swansea in South Wales
Founder/Pastor: John Myles (1621–1683), a Puritan preacher who became a convinced Baptist and Calvinist
Theological Identity: Particular Baptist (holding to sovereign grace, believer’s baptism, and Calvinistic soteriology)
Confessional Basis: Closely aligned with the 1644 and 1677/1689 London Baptist Confessions
2. Covenant and Church Order
The Ilston Church Book (a record preserved by John Myles) contains:
The church covenant
Member rolls
A record of discipline, ordination, and communion practices
Affirmations of strict church purity, regenerate membership, and closed communion
Their covenant included this type of language:
“We do solemnly covenant to walk together in the fear of God... observing all his holy ordinances and commandments... to keep ourselves from all defilements of flesh and spirit, and not to communicate in the ordinances of the Lord with any but such as are orderly members of a true gospel church.”
This reflects Strict Closed Communion.
3. Emigration to America
In 1662, due to increasing persecution under the Act of Uniformity, John Myles and several church members emigrated to the American colonies, specifically to Rehoboth, Massachusetts, where they founded a Baptist church (though they eventually moved to Swansea, Massachusetts due to pressure from the Puritan establishment).
Later descendants of the Ilston tradition would immigrate to Delaware, where in 1701, they established the Welsh Tract Baptist Church—carrying over Ilston’s strict views on communion and church order.
4. Communion Practice
The Ilston Church did not admit unbaptized persons to the Lord’s Supper.
They practiced fencing the table carefully, only allowing baptized believers who were in fellowship with the church.
Communion was seen as an act of church fellowship, not just personal devotion.
This practice shaped the Welsh Baptist tradition and was transplanted to early American Baptist churches.
5. Legacy
The Ilston Church Book was brought to America and is preserved today in the Rare Books Division at Brown University.
Ilston’s strict ecclesiology influenced:
Welsh Tract Baptist Church (Delaware)
Philadelphia Baptist Association (through tension and dialogue)
Closed communion traditions in Baptist life, especially among Old School and Reformed Baptists
Summary Table
Richard Cawthon (Baptist Heritage Researcher):
“The expulsion of Thomas Proud from the Ilston fellowship proves beyond doubt that the church did not practice open or even restricted communion. It held rigidly to the necessity of visible baptism and membership in that local body.”
B.G. Owens (The Ilston Book editor):
“Ilston Church preserved a high view of church order and the ordinances. Communion was for those in covenant fellowship; to suggest otherwise was treated as doctrinal error.”
4. Influence on Later Churches
The Welsh Tract Church in Delaware, founded by members of the Ilston tradition, inherited and continued this strict closed communion. Historian Morgan Edwards wrote:
“The Welsh Tract Church does not commune with other churches, nor receive members from them at the Lord’s Table, unless they join their particular fellowship.”
This shows that the Ilston tradition limited communion to its own members and enforced that view with discipline.
Conclusion
↩︎
Hello, I am trying to find an answer to my question concerning communion in the local church.
ReplyDeleteBeing that Old Baptist ministers preach at different locations every Sunday. I would assume if they believed in the local church taking the Lord's supper exclusively. If they were not a member of the church that was having communion, on that Sunday, did they still reside over the ordinance?
I would love to read in other articles on this subject that can be found.
Thanks,
Zach Byrd
zlbyrd@alumni.ncsu.edu
cell 336-380-8154
Soon more will come. Some modifications to it will be done, since some f the comments I quoted from Beebe, were not accurate.
DeleteThis appears to be chat gpt, I am unable to find where Gilbert Beebe advocated communion strictly with the local church. He seemed to believe it was good to commune with anyone in correspondence. Pleas prove me wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks
You are right brother. That quote from Beebe cannot be found in the Signs. IT seems that Beebe did believe in close communion and not closeD communion. I will correct this. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
DeleteBrother this is your answer about diffferent communio n in different churches. I was wrong about the OSB view on this, they allowed communion of brethren of the same face and order! Love you in the Lord!
ReplyDeleteIron sharpens iron! In Christian Love, Zach
ReplyDelete