DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSY.

23

upon it by coming to the Saviour and obeying him; that from him may be obtained salvation and the Holy Spirit. We urged upon sinners to believe now and receive salvation; that in vain they looked for the Spirit to be given them while they remained in unbelief; that they must believe before the Spirit or salvation would be given; that God was as willing to save them now as he ever was or ever would be; that no previous qualification was required, or necessary, in order to believe in Jesus and come to him; that if they were sinners this was their divine warrant to believe in him and to come to him for salvation; that Jesus died for all, and that all things were now ready. When we began first to preach these things the people appeared as just awakening from a sleep of ages. They seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning sin.”

Such preaching at the present time would not excite opposition in any evangelical church.

Good men, however, in Kentucky and other places, then thought that such sermons were calculated to seriously injure the church. They loved the church, and the truth as they understood it. Loyalty to Christ's holy church and fidelity to the gospel, as they saw it, required them to enter an earnest protest against the course of the revival preachers in their treatment of some doctrines usually regarded as orthodox.

There were five ministers in the Presbyterian Church, living in Ohio and Kentucky, who were active in the promotion of what they believed to be the work of God in the great meeting held at Cane Ridge in August, 1801. Their names were Richard McNemar, John Thompson, John Dunlavy, Robert Marshall, and Barton Warren Stone. McNemar, Thompson, and Dunlavy lived in Ohio; Mar

shall and Stone, in Kentucky. David Purviance, whose name will appear further on in this history, was a candidate for the ministry, and was in sympathy with the then new theology and the new theologians.

Charges were preferred against McNemar in the Presbytery, and he was cited for trial. He was condemned for preaching doctrines contrary to the Confession of Faith. The case came before the Synod. Marshall, Dunlavy, Stone, and Thompson understood that McNemar's was a test case, and that if he were condemned for heresy they also were under a ban. When it was seen that the decision would be against them, and before the judgment of the court was announced, the five accused brethren withdrew to a garden, where, in prayer, they sought divine direction. Having prayed, they drew up a protest against the proceedings of the Synod in McNemar's case, a declaration of independence, and a withdrawal from the jurisdiction of this tribunal, but not from the Presbyterian Church.

The public reading of this document created a sensation. A committee was at once appointed to confer with the protesting brethren, and induce them, if possible, to reconsider their decision. This committee was prompt and faithful in the discharge of its duty, but was compelled to report to the Synod that the accused brethren remained firm. An aged gentleman named Rice-David Rice—familiarly and lovingly known as "Father Rice," was the most important member of this committee. He maintained, in his interviews with the young brethren, that every departure from Calvinism was a step toward atheism! The steps named by him were from Calvinism to Arminianism, from Arminianism to Pelagianism, from Pelagianism to deism, from deism to atheism!

Since the effort of the committee to reclaim the erring brethren was unsuccessful, they were, according to the

ORGANIZATION OF THE SPRINGFIELD PRESBYTERY. 25

forms of law recognized in the Presbyterian denomination, adjudged guilty of departing from the standards in their public teaching, and were therefore suspended from the ministry.

A result of the position of these brethren and the action of Synod was contention in the churches and division.

The decision of the Synod still more turned the minds of Messrs. Marshall, Dunlavy, McNemar, Stone, and Thompson against all human authoritative creeds. They blamed their creed for the strife in their beloved church, and for the consequent division, but not yet had the suspended ministers a serious thought of leaving the fellowship of the Presbyterian denomination.

Immediately, therefore, after their withdrawal from Synod, they organized the Springfield Presbytery. A letter was addressed by the excommunicated ministers to their congregations, in which they informed them of what had transpired-the prayers in the garden, the protest, the declaration of independence, the withdrawal, the excom munication—promising soon to give a full account of their conception of the gospel, and reasons for their conduct. This promise was in due time redeemed. Their objections to the Confession of Faith were given at length. They assailed all authoritative creeds formed by fallible men. They declared their abandonment of all such creeds as tests of Christian fellowship. They affirmed their devotion to the Bible alone as containing a sufficient, and the only infallible, standard of faith and rule of life. They maintained that it alone was "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," and that by the Bible and the Bible alone "the man of God may be perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This volume bore the title, "The Apology of Springfield Presbytery."

The conduct of the deposed brethren was not such as to calm the troubled waters. Pamphlets were published against them; pulpits engaged in the controversy; almost of necessity there was more or less of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and consequent injustice and ill-feeling. To claim that the suspended ministers and their adherents were in no respect to blame would be to claim for them more wisdom and forbearance and self-control than belongs to our frail human nature. By the zeal of friends and enemies alike the views of the condemned ministers spread rapidly.

Under the name of the "Springfield Presbytery" the five men mentioned above went forward preaching and organizing churches. During this time also David Purviance, spoken of already as a candidate for the ministry, united with this Presbytery. After about a year they saw, or thought they saw, that the name and organization of the "Springfield Presbytery" was not in harmony with their publicly expressed devotion to the Bible alone as a sufficient standard of faith and guide of life. The thought came into their minds that the name "Christian" was given to the disciples of Christ by divine authority. Converts to the new views were rapidly made. Churches were organized, and preachers multiplied. But the consciences of these good men could not long remain in such a state of tension. Their words and deeds alike must harmonize with their convictions of truth and duty.

Consequently, at the next annual meeting of the newly organized Presbytery, held in the month of June, in the year 1804, it was determined by the organizers and other members to bring the existence of the body to an end. This they did with entire unanimity by the adoption of a singular paper entitled "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery.”

THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT.

27

This document, drawn in the form of a will, and signed by the deposed ministers, was followed by a statement called

"THE WITNESSES' ADDRESS.

"We, the above-named witnesses of The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery,' knowing that there will be many conjectures respecting the causes which have occasioned the dissolution of that body, think proper to testify that from its first existence it was knit together in love, lived in peace and concord, and died a voluntary and happy death.

“Their reasons for dissolving that body were the following: With deep concern they viewed the divisions and party spirit among professed Christians, principally owing to the adoption of human creeds and forms of government. While they were united under the name of a Presbytery they endeavored to cultivate a spirit of love and unity with all Christians; but found it extremely difficult to suppress the idea that they themselves were a party separate from others. This difficulty increased in proportion to their success in the ministry. Jealousies were excited in the minds of other denominations, and a temptation was laid before those who were connected with the various parties to view them in the same light. At their last meeting they undertook to prepare for the press a piece entitled 'Observations on Church Government,' in which the world will see the beautiful simplicity of the Christian church government stripped of all human inventions and lordly traditions.

As they proceeded in the investigation of that subject, they soon found that there was neither precept nor example in the New Testament for such confederacies as modern church sessions, presbyteries, synods, general assemblies,