The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration

by J. W. Shepherd

It was John Smith that gave impulse and tone to the reformation in Bracken, as he had already done in North District, Boone’s Creek and other associations.

It was decided while the Association was in session that Bracken would recommend no creed or confession of faith but the New Testament. Bracken did not, however, remain long of this mind; but went back into regular fellowship in 1830; yet not without great loss by defection to the side of those contending for the “ancient order of things”. Benedict, the Baptist historian, informs us that “the number of members was reduced from 2,200 to 900 on account of the sweeping inroads of the Reformers.”

The next association to take action in 1828 was the Boone’s Creek. The letter sent out by the Association in 1827 said to the churches composing it: “We hear from some of the churches that they are endeavoring to return to ‘the ancient order of things’, and they recognize the Scriptures alone as an entire and sufficient rule of faith and practice.” During the spring and summer of 1828 there was an increase of about 870 members by immersion, many of whom had been brought in through the preaching of John Smith. The Association, composed of thirteen churches, met on the third Sunday in September. The question before it, raised in letters of two churches, was concerning an amendment to the constitution to bring it into harmony with the Word of God. The following action was taken by the Association and reported back to all the churches:

We, therefore, recommend to the churches an abolition of the present constitution, and, in lieu thereof, an adoption of this resolution: Resolved, That we the Churches of Jesus Christ, believing the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and obedience given by the great Head of the Church for its government, do agree to meet annually on every third Saturday, Lord’s day, and Monday in September of each year, for the worship of God, and on such occasions voluntarily communicate the state of religion amongst us by letter and messenger. (Christian Baptist, Vol. 6. page 420.)

Such men as John Smith, William Morton, Jeremiah Vardeman and Jacob Creath, Jr., all under the influence of the restoration movement, were the leading spirits in this meeting. The report of the action of churches with reference to the resolution was made a year later. The result showed that seven churches voted to retain the constitution, six voted to abolish it. At the meeting in 1830 these six churches were dropped from the Association, and both the North District and Tate’s Creek messengers were rejected.

In 1829 Tate’s Creek Association was under the controlling influence of the restoration movement. A minority of orthodox Baptist churches withdrew and called a meeting for the month of June, 1830, at which they drew up a bill of errors against certain preachers and churches of the Association. This Association was composed of delegates from ten of the twenty-six churches. They organized and proceeded to meet as the “Tate’s Creek Association”, and resolved to cut off correspondence with the churches that “tolerated the heresy of Campbellism”. Thus we see that the majority of this Association was in line with the effort to restore the “ancient order of things”.

The Franklin and Elkhorn Associations were, however, not friendly to the movement, though there was a strong and influential minority committed to those principles. In 1829 Franklin Association adopted decrees rejecting as heretical all those who sought to return to apostolic Christianity and all churches were warned not to harbor any such errors. The Elkhorn Association at its meeting in 1830 dropped from further correspondence two churches, and refused to recognize the messengers from the North District, thus excluding from Baptist fellowship eighteen churches and 1,427 members.

The Russell Creek and South Concord Associations took action against “Campbellite heresy”, the latter passing a resolution advising all churches to lock their doors against “the followers of Alexander Campbell, who deny the agency of the Spirit”. Very few of the Kentucky Baptist Associations escaped the influence of the effort to return to primitive Christianity.

The success of the movement only increased the bitterness and hate of the opposition. No longer satisfied with misrepresentation, and with closing the doors of their meeting places against Smith, the leaders of the Baptist churches formulated measures for the forcible expulsion of all who gave heed to the teaching of Smith and his co-workers. As this purpose spread from church to church and from association to association, Smith threw himself fearlessly into the breach, and with his rugged eloquence sought to stay any attempt at disruption, and to preserve the peace and order of religious society. As the heat of this controversy grew intense, his genial spirit and good-fellowship were only the more manifest. In the excitement of the times he alone was calm. Amidst the cloud of angry faces that often denied him a hearing, his countenance alone was lit up with a friendly smile. When the doors were locked against him by some unfriendly hand, he would speak to those who gathered to hear him on such occasions in the woods, refusing to sanction any act of violence by which admittance might be gained. Though from this time in the thickest of the fight, he was a man of peace; and while others “gnashed on him with their teeth”, he only replied in pleasantries. The principles for which he now contended were the right of free speech and private judgment. As railing accusations were brought against him and those who shared his views, he would usually seek the opportunity of replying, but was invariably refused the simple privilege claimed.

The effort of John Smith, therefore, to maintain the unity of the Baptist Church on the broad platform which he had framed for himself was soon found unavailing. The unyielding policy of those who were antagonistic to apostolic Christianity was to deny fellowship to those who joined in the search to learn the way of the Lord more perfectly. “Seek first to reclaim these reformers from their error”, was the method now suggested; “if your efforts should fail, invite them to leave you, and to practice their reformation to themselves. If they will not go at your request, separate them from you in the best way you can.”