Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1853-01-20

NJ Essas. EDIToRs:--I see a COM
in the Observer of Oct.
81, headed "Bloody Work, = over the
"a Bible Reader" From
the spirit Of that article, it seems
indeed, that "a Bible reader
should have been the author Of such.
a production; and if under the inau-
ence Of the Spirit that dictated that
Holy Volume, I am frank to confess
that I am no discerner Of spirits. 1t
is Obvious that the writer intended
to calumniate the Elk River Associa-
ton 1t is we'll known to many of
your readers that there has been an
unpleasant state Of feeling among
some Of the churches of Elk River
Association, since the year 1916,
owing to her having dropped or with
draw n her correspondence from the
Richland Association-there being
a snh alI minority in favor of Rich
land Hand as it is insinuated that Elk
River has become corrupt, having de-
part ed from her former flith and doc
trine, (Which she asserts to be false
we i i'll here introduce a few facts for
the Information Of those that may
feel interested in them:
Ih lJS46, the Richland Associa-
ton became divided in doctrine; the
chuf ches that now compose that AS
oci4tion denying the doctrine of Il
futu re- resurrection of the body from
the dead, advocating the doftrine OF
eterh $l Justification, eternal Evil, and
and the eternal umoniof Christ and
the church-the churches out OF
which the Fountain Creek Assooia-
ton was formed, advocating the doc
trind of the res direction from the
dead and protestlh be against their po-
sitioh non justilica ion, evil. &c Now.
when these two Al associations present
ed their letters o T correspondence to
the sister Associa tons, and their diff
fereIc were investigated, they
drop ped Richlandand received Fount-
ain Greek, but the writer who has
been Cabling over the proceedings
Of Elk River alone stands in opposl-
tion and her doctrines. But does he
not know that Elk River Assoeia-
ton stands identified in TN ion and
co rd spondehce with seven Associa-
tions, and Indirectly with eleven 9TH
ers who correspond with these seven
who directly correspond with Elk
River r. The csc Is Associations are
only d part of the great body Of
Primitive Baptist in Tennessee, Ala
hlma ,and adjoining States, who stand
identified III doctrine and practice
With ELK River Association, and jus
tffy her in the course she has taken
with the Richland Association. But
where is the correspondence of Rich
lind? Has she any, except the party
fiction Of an Association that divided
d N ths same principles that she did
HERSELF? This must be the relracto-
ny party referred to by Elder Childish
lis communication Of the llth of
November. But if he should insist
that it is Elk River and her cores
| ond@nce, let him do so-thc people
ARE too well informed to believe it.
But iii relation to those of Elk River
Who fell in the minority, We think it
Was their duty to have submitted to
the minority; and as the Association
Had decided against the doctrine of
u on-resurreotidn and those things in
C pnneEion with it, they should have
b een Silent and not have excited
those questions among us that have
divided other churches and AsSocia-
tions. But it is we'll known chat
there were some that seemed disposed
t b contend fer these things. regard
less of the effects produced The
churches were distressed and divided
i4 feeling, the Association was called
upon TO provide for the general union
Of her churches; she then thought
proper to request those churches to
put away from among them those
thingsI that had broken their peace,
also TO affectionately invite the
churches and brethren to the neees-
sity of coming up on the Etith and
government on which they had COW
ehantetl to live together in union; at
The san be time giving them TO under
sdand that if any church should re-
dse to receive the advice of the AS
,dciation, but continued to invite and
{ ceive those ministers who were
] / Al \