1895
Charlotte Presbytery met in Waverly, Tennessee, on March 8, 1895.
"L. P. Adams joined presbytery and after being examined was licensed to preach the gospel."
[Source: "Extract of the Minutes of Charlotte Presbytery," in The Cumberland Presbyterian, March 21, 1895, page 5]
[Original minutes of Charlotte Presbytery are not in the archives.]

1895
Charlotte Presbytery met in Dunbar, Montgomery County, Tennessee, on October 13, 1895.
"Candidate J. L. Boaz and Licentiate L. P. Adams were found prepared for licensure and ordination respectively, but part of the committee reported that these two young men believed and taught the second blessing theory of sanctification, and asked for an investigation. A discussion followed, which developed the following curious state of facts: Everybody agreed that the Bible teaches the doctrine of sanctification, and that our Confession of Faith enjoins on believers the duty of availing themselves of the inestimable blessings of this doctrine. But there was no agreement as to how believers can availing themselves of the inestimable blessings of this doctrine. But there was no agreement as to how believers can avail themselves of this blessing. Some argued that it was all obtained in conversion. Others said believers grow into it, while the young men maintained that it was a distinct work of grace by faith. They disclaimed teaching absolute sinless perfection. At their own request the proposed licensure and ordination were postponed until the next meeting of presbytery."
[Source: "Extract of the Minutes of Charlotte Presbytery," in The Cumberland Presbyterian, October 24, 1895, page 5]
[Original minutes of Charlotte Presbytery are not in the archives.]

1896
Charlotte Presbytery met at New Hope, Dickson County, Tennessee, March 6-9, 1896.
"Licentiates L. P. Adams and S. B. Zarecor were ordained."
[Source: "Extract of the Minutes of Charlotte Presbytery," in The Cumberland Presbyterian, March 26, 1896, page 5]
[Original minutes of Charlotte Presbytery are not in the archives.]

1896
Adams, L. P., Erin, Tenn.
Minister - Charlotte Presbytery
[Source: Minutes of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Ministerial Directory, 1896, page 148]

1896
Committee on Judiciary made report No. 2, as follows, which was adopted:

To the Moderator and Brethren of the Synod of Tennessee.-- Report No. 2, Judiciary Committee:

Your committee beg leave to make the following report on the matters of complaint filed by T. O. Webb, A. H. Manly and T. C. Morris.

We find from a careful perusal of the records of Charlotte Presbytery of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, a certified copy of which has been filed with the clerk of this Synod, that the rules of government of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church have been carefully observed in the ordination of Probationer L. P. Adams.

The principles laid down and the rules to be observed for trials for ordination are so clearly stated in the Constitution that no question as to the meaning thereof can here arise.

Section 56 of the Constitution fixes the mode of ascertaining the proficiency and qualification of a probationer. "Shall consist of a careful and satisfactory examination of the licentiate before Presbytery as a committee thereof," upon what? The following: Upon experimental religion, his internal call to the ministry, his knowledge of geography, English grammar, philosophy, astronomy, ecclesiastical history, the holy scriptures, natural and revealed theology, and the government of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church; and in addition thereto encourage a complete knowledge of the original languages.

The record which is here to be reviewed clearly shows the care of Presbytery in obeying the requirements of the Constitution. This having been done, we are of the opinion that L. P. Adams was entitled to ordination. This much for the action of Presbytery.

This complaint, in the opinion of the committee, does not give sufficient reasons upon which to base complaint. "Is not in harmony with our Confession of Faith upon the subject of sanctification; that he believes in and teaches the second blessing theory of sanctification." As to the first clause of this complaint, we are of the opinion that without any specifications or reasons given showing or tending to show a conflict with the doctrines of the Confession of Faith in regard to sanctification, the complaint is only an assertion, and Synod is not required to further notice this part of complaint.

As to the latter clause of complaint, we refer to statement of said Adams made to Presbytery before his ordination by Charlotte Presbytery, in open session, at its March session, 1896, in which he clearly announced "that he did not believe nor teach absolute sinless perfection, but did believe and teach that being entirely sanctified by the constant abiding in Christ we are enable to live void of offense toward God and believers." (See certified record, page 4.)

We are of the opinion that this position is not in conflict with the Constitution's rules for trials for ordination, and would say that L. P. Adams was entitled to ordination, and the complaint should not be sustained.

Joe H. Fussell,
J. D. Black,
I. M. Bowers,
John C. Jones,
W. R. Holmes.

Statement of Rev. L. P. Adams referred to by the committee:

1. Sanctification is a doctrine of the holy scriptures.
2. That it is the duty and privilege of believers to avail themselves of its benefits.
3. As taught in the Word of God, it means a setting apart and purification or cleansing from the stains and pollution of sin.
4. That sanctification is obtained by entire consecration and faith on the part of the believer, the purifying or cleansing being the work and gift of God subsequent to conversion. We do not believe nor teach absolute sinless perfection, but we do believe and teach that, being entirely sanctified by the constant abiding in Christ, we are enabled to live void of offense toward God and believers.
[Source: Minutes of the Synod of Tennessee of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, October 22-24, 1896, pages 16-18]

1896
"The following communication, signed by Rev. A. H. Manly, Rev. T. O. Webb, and Ruling Elder T. O. Morris, all of Charlotte Presbytery, explains itself: 'We have been informed that a delegate from Charlotte Presbytery filed a complaint with the Tennessee Synod at its last session against the action of said presbytery in ordaining Rev. L. P. Adams during the spring session of presbytery; said delegate claiming that he was authorized to do so by us. In the spirit of justice, we wish to say that the brother acted hastily. He wrote the complaint, signed our names, filed it, and had the synod act on it, without the least intimation to one of us that he intended to do so. He did not even submit the complaint to one of us for approval or rejection in its wording."
[Source: The Cumberland Presbyterian, November 26, 1896, page 26]

1896
Ruling Elder H. H. Buquo, of Erin, Tenn., asks that this correction appear: In my card published in the "Cumberland Presbyterian," 3rd inst., third clause and following sentence, "After this the question of preparing the record came up in the presence of the clerk, who remarked that it was not his duty to make out a transcript of the record and forward it to the synod" the types inserted the word "not" and thus materially changed the sense of the entire communication. The explanation and defense of the clerk is, that it was his duty to make and forward the transcript of the record, and that this he was by law compelled to do unless he had proper notice of the abandonment of the complaint.
[Source: The Cumberland Presbyterian, December 10, 1896, page 27]

1897
"In reply to the statement which appeared in "The Cumberland Presbyterian" November 26, 1896, in regard to the complaint against the action of the Charlotte Presbytery in ordering Rev. L. P. Adams, the clerk of of said presbytery says: 'After this question of preparing the record came up in the presence of the clerk, who remarked that it was not his duty to make out a transcript of the record and forward it to the synod. The clerk then understood the complainants to say they were willing for him to prepare the complaint, believing that he would get it up in legal form. This the clerk agreed to do.' See issue of Dec. 13, 1896.

There are three items here we wish to notice:
1. It was the preparation of the complaint and not 'the record' which was being considered.
2. 'The clerk then understood the complainants to say that they were willing for him to prepare the complaint, believing that he would get it up in legal form.' This is correct. The complainants not being very well versed in preparing such things for church courts did make this request of the clerk, which shows it was the complaint and not the record under discussion.
3. 'This the clerk agreed to do.' Here the clerk's memory does not serve him well. He declined to do so, On the table before me is a communication from him to the writer, dated Nov. 5, 1896, in which he says: 'I was asked to prepare that complaint and demurred on the ground that I was interested.,' Demur means to hesitate. Decline, to refuse to do any thing, which, in this case, he most assuredly did, and it was so regarded by the complainants. This conversation occurred on the day the Charlotte Presbytery adjourned in March, 1896, and not another word on the subject ever passed between the clerk and any of the complainants so far as the writer knows until after the meeting of the synod.

In "The Cumberland Presbyterian" Dec. 10, 1896, the brother says: 'It was his duty to make and forward the transcript of the record.' This we admit; but most positively deny that he had any authority by the Rules of Discipline (see sec. 29) to include in that record anything beyond the 'notice of the complaint,' and reasons, if any have been filed."

The clerk seems to think that he was compelled by the law to do what he did, unless we had notified him that we had abandoned the complaint.

We suppose courtesy would have demanded this of us, but the law does not. (See Rules of Discipline, sec. 85.) If he had manifested the spirit of courtesy in submitting the complaint to us for our approval or rejection in its wording, and thereby intimated to us that he intended to have the synod to pass on the subject some way, we could have informed him that the complaint had been abandoned. Again, when a case is lost in an inferior court a legally appointed attorney serves notice on the court, if it is the wish of his client that he will take an appeal to the higher court. The brother did not do this neither has he even notified us, as the moderator of the synod that the synod sustained the action of the presbytery. If the law does not, courtesy demanded this much on his part, then we would have had an opportunity in the ten days limit if desirable to have appealed to the Assembly.

In conclusion: We believe that the clerk of Charlotte Presbytery, Brother H. H. Buquo, is a good Christian gentleman, though liable to make mistakes sometimes, as he has done in this instance, for which we do not wish to stand responsible.
             A. H. MANLY.
Waverly, Tenn.
[Source: The Cumberland Presbyterian, January 14, 1897, page 28]

1897
MARTIN, Tenn.--Rev. L. P. Adams preached morning and evening of April 11. The congregation is small but has Sunday school every Sabbath and preaching once a month. Mr. Adams recently preached at Gleason where the congregation has service once a month, sustaining regularly as Sabbath school and Endeavor Society. Mr Adams is at present at McKenzie where he will remain several days assisting Evangelist M. C. Aleridge in a meeting.
[Source: The Cumberland Presbyterian, April 22, 1897, page 12]

1897
Adams, L. P. (general evangelist), Erin, Tenn.
Minister - Charlotte Presbytery
[Source: Minutes of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Ministerial Directory, 1897, page 286]

1898
He is no longer listed in the Ministerial Directory and at some point leaves the denomination.