■,%.. 
 
 v>7-T- 
 
 ^%. 
 
 ^J'k^K^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 y 
 
 
 // 
 
 ,.>" C^ 
 
 
 <? 
 
 
 /i^. 
 
 y. 
 
 Ua 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 ifitt iiiiiM 
 
 '" IM III 2.2 
 
 1^ 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 1.6 
 
 
 ■* 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 % 
 
 & 
 
 /a 
 
 /y 
 
 O 
 
 e-A 
 
 & 
 
 a. 
 
 ^ 
 
 el 
 
 >y 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 f^v^- 
 
 
 ^\^ 
 
 
 ^ V'<5^q\ 
 
 rv- 
 
 % 
 
 %% 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. I4S80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 n/ 
 

 ^ 
 
 % ^j 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions 
 
 Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vu3 bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduce, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou poire) 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires: 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicut^es 
 
 r~~] Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 I V I Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqudes 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages detachees 
 
 QShowthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualit^ in^gale de I'impression 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 
 □ Only ( 
 Seule 
 
 Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fa^on ^ 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 SOX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 16X 
 
 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce d la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers arc filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning 'END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate th? 
 method: 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commnngant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en conr.men^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la 
 dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole —^' signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie 'FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 9 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
Price I2h cis. 
 
 EEPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 THE LETTER Or 
 
 HON. J. w. JO 
 
 HJVSTON 
 
 tifO 
 
 'HTI)(;e IxN EQUITY. 
 
 oji 
 
 
 HALIFAX. 
 mNTED AT «A RNES' 8TKAM 
 
 1868. 
 
 JWIESS 
 
 ^:a-i£ 
 
 -i«%lB-taasti 
 
.0,1 Pinre n, o&>.»ra the ioiiowiau' ^ -" 
 ,j^;«!Hgn to th« Chuveh cither hy Pr. Pryor or yi. 
 />)unnl. Bttt we will refer to that matter u-aui. " 
 ' We f^.H\ wc have onuttcd K> mention ^vhal w. ah 
 .„l.cn.«n1y. .atuoly. thatlhe xaatt^r of .alimg a 
 t>eibvc the Pcacons. B«fc ^o. Appenrt.^ pag, 5^t>0. _ 
 
 F.HAT«M.--F«.c'79-l-^tlin.>r ''i*«<^r;- read muntK. 
 
 vent ion of a 
 
 lV to mier m 
 \w^\ had ])reviOT»3i)'' b«5^ 
 
 -:44i!r 
 
MfCji 
 
 REPLY 
 
 
 A 
 
 OP THB 
 
 #vjittvilk cit. fjiirtiist ^I«uth, 
 
 HAL! FAX, 
 
 TO "i .IB 
 
 I.ETTER ADDBESSED TO THEM 
 
 ■HY 
 
 \ 
 
 THE HON. J. W. JOHNSluN, 
 
 |ubge hi €qurtjj. 
 
 :o:al!fa:v. 
 ^rmtfd at baumcs' stea' press, 
 
 1 
 
 .^ 
 
 I 
 
LP 
 
 >■ it' 
 
TO THE CIirRCHES COMPRISING THE 
 KOVA-SCOTIA CENTRAL BAPTIST ASSOCIATION 
 
 AND 
 
 TO THE BAPTISTS OF 
 
 The Hon. Judge Johnston having published and widely circu- 
 lated a letter addressed to us, we think it proper to place before you 
 our reply. We have also published, for your information, an appendix 
 containing the documentary history of our proceedings relative to our 
 late Pastor. 
 
 We do not lay our reply before you sirnidy to vindicate ourselves. 
 We regard it as an imperative duty to uphold and maintain certain 
 principles long held and acted upon by Baptists, to which, we think, 
 Judcre Johnston has done violence iu his " act of formal separation " 
 from us. 
 
 It may be thought that we should have published the evidence 
 
 placed before the Council ; but, as a fair reply to Judge Johnston's 
 
 letter did not render it imperative to deal to any great extent with it, 
 
 and as it is itself of such a character that its publication would not 
 
 he likely to advance the interests of morality, we have deemed it best 
 
 to withhoM it. You will, however, be able to judge from the history 
 
 of our proceedings, as contained in the appendix, whether we have 
 
 ncted under the influence of prejudice and inflamed passions, as has 
 
 been charged against us. 
 
 On behalf of the Church, 
 
 B. II. Eaton, Clerk, j 
 
 
REPLY. 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 HoNOiiABLK J. W. Johnston, 
 
 JuDOK IN Equity. 
 
 Sir, — The letter you have sent us demands a reply at our hands. 
 
 We regret that you have thought it proper to send us such a 
 communication. We regret that all our doings, with scarcely an 
 exception, have incurred your displeasure. We regret that you hold 
 the erroneous views of Baptist Church polity which you propound. 
 We regret that one so long associated with us as a member and oihce- 
 bearer, should have a desire to leave us. We regret that you have 
 thought it proper to impute very improper motives to us. The object 
 of our reply will be to convince you that our pi-oceedings have not 
 been such as to justif}' your condemnation, but that if we hav(! made 
 mistakes, (and we do not claim to be infallible), the whole course of 
 our action is inconsistent with the supposition that we have acted 
 from the improper motives you attribute to us. It ^vill be our duty 
 to correct the more important errors into which we think you have 
 fallen, to acknowledge our own errors, so far as we are conscious of 
 them, and to uphold and maintain certain fundamental principles to 
 which we think you have done violence. 
 
 Our reply will necessarily lead us through most of the acts of the 
 Church relative to their late Pastor, and will allow us no space, if we 
 desired any, to do more than notice, in passing, the harsh words and 
 harsh epithets you have used. These, indeed, could not be answered 
 except by recrimination. We have seldom, if ever, read a production 
 so studded with harsh forms of speech — Here are a few examples : 
 " defiant rejection," "dishonorable, unjust, and unchristian conduct," 
 ''a despotism so ruthless." ''insidiously affects." "revolting malignity," 
 "self-conceit, inflamed by pride, obstinate in self-will," "vindictive and 
 spiteful temper," "acrimonious hostility," "rancorous enmity," "steeped 
 in the venom of hate and pride." These are hard words, and such as 
 even we, who listened forbcaringlj for months to similar expressions 
 
6 
 
 whicli fell from your lips in the warmth of debate, arc surprised to 
 meet with in a document prepared in the quiet of your study — a 
 document in which yon are giving your reasons for wishiii<f to separate; 
 from those with whom yon have, for so many yoai-.s, walked as brethren 
 and sisters. We decline to answer with such words. AVe think of 
 the Archangel's language reported by Jude, verse 9. We have ever 
 striven to heed the advice of Paul to the Ephesians " Let all bitterness, 
 and wrath, and anger, and evil speaking, be put away from you with 
 all malice." 
 
 Nor shall we have space, and, indeed, it is foreign to the object of 
 this letter, to consider your references to individuals. You have very 
 unwarrantably dragged into your letter a large amount of vituperative 
 matter with which we have mo connection whatever. We are not 
 responsible for the management of the Christian Messenr/er. Whether 
 Bro. Selden has conducted the controversy with the Rev. I. E. Bill 
 wisely, or unwisely, is no concern of ours as a Church, whatever 
 opinion individual members may hold respecting it. This only is to 
 be remembered, that Mr. Bill was the aggressor. If he had not 
 published an inaccurate account of the proceedings of the late Council, 
 the controversy between him and Brother Selden would not have 
 taken place. But, as we said before, we have nothing to do with it. 
 
 Nor are we called upon to deal with your references to Cambridge 
 matters. These were never before the Church. We never accused 
 our late Pastor of misconduct in Cambridge. The reports abroad 
 concerning his conduct there, never came before this Church ; and the 
 time spent by Dr. Crawley before the Council in producing testimony 
 to Dr. I'ryor's purity of life and usefulness in Cambridge, was time 
 spent in endeavouring to falsify accusations never made or entertained 
 at any of our meetings. 
 
 Passing by these things, then, we shall review the action of the 
 Church throughout all our proceedings concerning our late Pastor, and 
 give our reasons for the course taken by us, noticing your complaints 
 and errors as we proceed. 
 
 In 18G2 Dr. Pryor became Pastor of Granville Street Church, and 
 continued to hold that office till May, 18G7. He was a member of the 
 Church from March 1st, 18(!7, to September 24th, 1867. Up to the 
 25th of April last, this Church was not cognizant of wrong conduct on 
 the part of their Pastor. Here and there a member, indeed, had heaitl 
 rumors for months back derogatory to his character, but believed they 
 had no foundation in fact, and dismissed them from their minds, and it 
 was afterwards known that some members of the congregation had 
 
ubsenteil thoraselves from our meetings on account of such rumors ; but 
 on the morning of" the 21th of April an event took place, which came 
 upon us like a sudden clap of thunder, and in a moment threw upon us 
 the performance of the most distressing duties. Early in the morning ot 
 that day our Pastor was caught coming from a house in Pleasant Street, 
 where ho had been staying in the depth of night, for about two hours, 
 with a yonng woman not of good repute, and whose luisband was abroad. 
 ♦She was not a member of auy church, but had been excluded from a 
 Baptist Church in Boston, and seldom attended any place of worship. 
 This event, with its attendant eircuiuotauces, was soon known through- 
 out the city. 
 
 Here the record begins. You know how stunned and shocked the 
 Church was on learning these things. You know how all the city 
 was ablaze with the matter, when on the 26th, at the instance of 
 three of the Deacons, who had agreed witlx Dr. Pryor to call a 
 meeting, we met. hoping to hear such explanations from our Pastor 
 as would satisfy the Church of his innocence ; but being disappointed 
 in this, we were then compelled to commence the dist barge of the 
 grave duties thus suddenly thrown upon us. You know what a 
 whirlwind of damaging reports was going tlirough all the streets 
 of the city. 
 
 Now, at this point, what was the clear duty of GraTiville Street 
 Church? What we did was this. We listened to Dr. Pryor's expla- 
 nations. With his perfect concurrence we appointed committees to 
 investigate the evil rej^orts abroad concerning his character, charging 
 them to use all diligence in their work. Thus far, we believe, our 
 proceedings have not incurred your condemnation. But here a step 
 was taken which you regard as " harsh and unjust." 
 
 After Dr. Pryor had retired from this meeting, the bretlireu consulted 
 together and concluded that it would be inexpedient that Dr. Pryor 
 should occupy the pulpit on tlie coming Sabbath, and requested Deacon 
 Selden, to communicate with Dr. Pryor, and after consultation to invite 
 Rev. Mr. Welton to preach. You are not correct in saying that the 
 reason assigned for this course, was that some members of the Church, 
 and congregation were so excited, that if he officiated, they would 
 leave the Meeting House, if you mean that that was the only or the 
 chief reason. There were other reasons assigned. Some said that Dr. 
 Pryor would not wish to preach, others that he ought not, some said 
 they could not listen to him with profit, others that few would go to 
 hear him. We certainly understood from yourself, at the time, that 
 
 ^ 
 
8 
 
 it would be inexpedient that he shoukl preach, bat that the arrange-- 
 ment should be so effected as to secure harmony. 
 
 But we ask you, if it was right for you to suppose that this 
 arrangement was dictated by unfrieadliness to Dr. Pryor ? To us, the 
 only w(-nder is, that lie liimself did not (it once propose a temporary 
 withdrawment from the pulpit. Do you not think that a sense of 
 delicacy and propriety would have led to that proposal? That a 
 minister of the gospel, should himself desire to occupy the sacred 
 desk, when charges of the gravest character affecting him, were 
 under investigation, is to us unaccountable. How could a minister 
 placeu in these circumstances, hope to win a gainsaying world to 
 purity and holiness ? Had it been a case where the minister could 
 have given an indignant denial to alleged facts, another course might 
 perhaps have been adopted. But in this case, the minister acknow- 
 ledges that lie had spent two hours in the depth of night, alone with a 
 young woman, against whose character ho hud heard evil reports, and 
 which reports (as the woman herself testifies) he was discussing with 
 her during those hours. When leaving this womnn, on the night in 
 question, he acknowledges that instead of meeting Mr. Baxter face to 
 face, as an honest man on an honest mission should have done, he sought 
 to elude him, and when arrested, betrayed by his la.iguage and manner, 
 a consciousness of grevious impropriety. Such a suspension of duties 
 would be insisted on, during the investigation of alleged misconduct of 
 an ofHcial for instance, in a bank or post office ; " and shall we listen 
 to the slander " that secular departments have a gi-eater desire to 
 preserve public confidence than a Church ? 
 
 Yoi: have made several misstatements under this head. One of the 
 gravest is this — " A letter was sent to inform Dr. Pryor that his 
 pulpit would be filled by another minister." Fortunately wo possess 
 a copy of the document sent, and the reply. They are as follows:— 
 
 Saturday Morning. 
 Key. Dr. Tuyor : 
 
 My Dear Sir, — Aflor you lofl the room last cvonin<^, the l>rethrcn cam<- 
 to the conclusion, that in the present stat(> of alViiirs, it would not be rijrlit to 
 tax you to (ill the pulpit to-morrow. With your concurrence, theix'fore, we 
 pnjpiase to }«^!t Mr. WcUon. Have the goodness to reply per bearer. 
 
 Youi-s very truly, 
 
 S. Seldkn. 
 
 R V. V I, Y. 
 
 Dear Br., — Whatt^ver t\u\ hrethren decided upon, I of coui-so consent 
 to. It seems, however, not exactly in accordance with usual custom. Will it 
 not look as if my brethren thought me guilty V 
 
 Youi-a truly, 
 
 John Puyou. 
 
 I 
 
at the 
 
 arrangew 
 
 ^'^«^ timt this 
 "■ ^o us, the 
 ^ a temporaiy 
 ^«t a sense of 
 ''^i? That a 
 '•^ *^ie sacred 
 ? iiim, ivere 
 ^^ ^ minister 
 "« ^^oritl to 
 "^'■^tor co„j(j 
 o'"-se might 
 'ei- acJcijotv. 
 '•^^"^ mth a 
 ^Poj'ts, and 
 Jssing wft^ 
 
 '^ '"'s-'it in 
 ter face to 
 ^Jesou"-ht 
 ^ manner, 
 "^ 'duties 
 mduct of 
 ^e listen 
 esire to 
 
 ^ of the 
 'lat his 
 Possess 
 TVs; — 
 
 oanu- 
 ■'it to 
 
 <ont 
 ilit 
 
 9 
 
 Mr. Welton was not communicated with until after this answer was 
 received. In the lijht of these written documents, wiiat can you 
 mean by " the rejection of the proposal to consult Dr. Pryor before 
 acting" ? He was consulted, and was told what was "proposed" to be 
 done with his "concurrence." Surely, surely, there was nothing in this 
 which called for "severe animadversion." You say the consequences of 
 exclusion from the pulpit, were "cruel and unjust to Dr. Pryor in the 
 extreme." You say, that abroad guilt was " universally infei red," and 
 in evidence of this you allude to what Mrs. Pryor's servant told her. 
 We do not believe that this cessation of pulpit duties created the 
 impression abroad that the Church had decided upon Dr. Pryor's 
 guilt. Certainly such an impression was unwarranted. 
 
 From the day of their apjK)intment to the 10th of May, the two 
 committees spent a great deal of time in the investigation of the 
 reports abroad in the city. On that day both committees were ready 
 to report. The committee on the immorality case presented their 
 report on thf t day, and you concurred in receiving it ; and you advo- 
 cated and voted for a resolution, founded on that report, and on Dr. 
 Pryor's own statements, to put an end to his pastoral relatloiis with 
 us, which resolution you had also assisted in maturing. The com- 
 mittee's report consisted of the evidence which they had gathered 
 from a number of witnesses. Now, you strongly object to the manner 
 in which this evidence was taken, and say that it was "utterly worth- 
 less — worthless judicially, and essentially worthless" — because taken 
 in the absence of the accused. We might answer you hero by 
 reminding you again, that you yourself ajted upon this evidence, and 
 advocated and voted for a resolution ex[)ressing a " conviction that 
 Dr. Pryor's indiscretion had been so great, as appears by the evidence 
 an<l by his own statements," as to destroy all hopes of his future 
 usefulness as our Pastor. Yes, you actually helped to mature that 
 resolution, and yet it was based in large part upon evidence which 
 you say was " utterly worthless." With your knowledge of the force 
 of written dociniients, how do you excuse yourself in doing Dr. Pryor 
 this great injustice? But we do not seek to justify our course in this 
 way. We are not willing to justify ourselves by your ai)proval or 
 concurrence. We wish to stand justified on higher grounds. 
 
 What are the foots ? The committee had to trace a multitude of 
 rumors and roi»orts to their sources. This necessitated visits to many 
 parts of the city, and inquiries from many persons. It did not occur to 
 the committee that Dr. Pryor would wish, while the city was so excited 
 with the scandal, to accompany them in their visits from place to place, 
 
 ^ 
 
10 
 
 day after day, nor did the committee receive pny intimation of such a 
 wish on the part of Dr. Pryor, until several days after their appoint- 
 ment. On the contrary, Dr. Pryor said in the presence of two members 
 of the committee, on Saturday, the day succeeding their appointment, 
 " For my own part, T do iiot see what there is for your committee to 
 do. A few silly rumors are afloat, but I meet every-body on the 
 street just as I ever did. I know no difference." On May Gth, how- 
 ever, Dr. Pryor inquired of one of the members of the committee, if 
 they wished him to meet with them at Mrs. Maxner's. In reply, he 
 was informed that the committee had no wish in the matter, but if he 
 desired to be present, the committee, no doubt, would be pleased to have 
 him. He stated that if the comiuittee wanted him he would be at the 
 
 office of , and it was arranged to notify him, but the witness being 
 
 absent at the time appointed, her evidence was subsequently taken in 
 Dr. Pryor's absence. From these statements, it is evident that Dr. 
 Pryor himself was not very anxious to follow the committee. When 
 the evidence had been taken it was read over to Dr. Pryor, and the 
 committee then stated that if it contained anything that was false, they 
 would arrange that he should meet any of those who had made state- 
 ments. Dr. Pryor declined to meet any of these persons, giving as his 
 reason that he supposed the committee had already formed their 
 opinions. This, surely, was not a very good reason, since five members 
 formed but a small portion of the Church, and could not of themselves 
 decide the question. But, then, the committee at once told Dr. Pryor 
 that they did not intend to express any opinion. They would simply 
 report the evidence to the Church. He still declined to meet any of 
 the witnesses. At Deacon Nutting's the evidence was again read over 
 in Dr. Pryor's presence. At the meeting of the Church, on ]\Iay 
 10th, the evidence was again read over. Dr. Pryor complained that 
 it had been taken in his absence. Upon this, some members rose and 
 proposed that, if Dr. Pryor was not willing to be judged on that 
 evidence, or if any mistake had been made by the committee, the 
 Church should pause before taking another step, and that what could 
 be done should be done to remove any cause of complaint ; and that 
 the witnesses, if required, should be brought forward for cross- 
 examination. But this proposal met no response from Dr. Pryor. 
 Had he then said, I want to meet my accusers face to face, there can- 
 not be a doubt but that the Church would most readily have acceded 
 to his request. Failing to take advantage of these opportunities to 
 cross-examine the witnesses, what possible grounds of complaint 
 remained ? 
 
' ^^^'03athn of . L 
 
 ,^ "^^ss being 
 
 ''!^'''t that Dr 
 T'''' ^Vhen 
 '•^'^'•' «m] the 
 ;"^ ^«^«e, they 
 ' !««d« state- 
 "'''^■"S- as his 
 ''"^^^l their 
 '^ «^embers 
 
 ^^■- %or 
 
 ■eafi over 
 
 '«^ tiat 
 ose and 
 
 '" tliat 
 'e, the 
 
 ?that 
 '■oss- 
 Tor. 
 fan- 
 
 i/ed 
 to 
 
 11 
 
 But, then, why did not you, acting, as you did, the part of 
 Dr. Pryor's advocate instead of that of a member of the Church, 
 why did you not, before voting, plead with all your might for a 
 thorouiih cross-examination of the witnesses ? You knew what an 
 opportunity the written statements of these witnessess would afford a 
 skilful cross-examiner of testing their reliability, and you should have 
 sought that opportunity. But why did you vote for the resolution of 
 May 10th? If the evidence was "utterly worthless," did you, in 
 acting upon it, act faithfully towards your l*astor or the oai'.se of 
 truth ? Was that resolution stronger than it should have been ? 
 Then you wronged Dr. I'ryor. Was that resolution more fiivorable 
 to your Pastor than it should have been ? Then you were neglecting 
 the cause of truth. 
 
 You have, however, given us some clue to your action. You say, 
 you agreed to the resolution "upon the express statement of Mr. 
 Selden and Dr. Parker, that guilt was not imputed in relation to the 
 charge of immorality, and upon the necessarily implied understanding 
 that the charge was thus finally disposed of." It seems a little strange 
 that you should agree to a resolution upon the statements of two out 
 of a large number who were to pass upon that resolution. The 
 " written document " ought surely to speak for itself, and verbal 
 statements of members could not change its meaning. 
 
 Again, you speak of " violating the conditions upon which my assent 
 had been induced." What! do you vote for or against resolutions 
 " upon conditions?" Do you barter in these solemn matters ? MVe are 
 at a loss to understand what else your language means. If in your 
 conscienc3, you thought that resolution was " unjust, injurious and 
 uncharitable," and ought not to have passed, no consideration rhould 
 have induced j'ou to vote for it. 
 
 This resolution passed, you voting for it. Up to this date, no desire 
 was expressed to the Church, either by Dr. Pryor, or yourself for the 
 intervention of a Council. But we will refer to that matter again. 
 
 On the 17th of May, the Church met again, and the report of the 
 financial committee was read, and also a letter from Dr. Pryor 
 accompanying it, and these with a farther written statement from Dr. 
 Pryor, were discussed during that evening, and on the evenings of 
 May 2-Uh, 27th, 28th, 29th and .30th, Oi ^ast evening named, 
 
 the resolution was passed, suspending Dr. ^ jr from church-ft;llow- 
 ship until he should explain what seemed to point only to guilt. 
 
 Before that resolution passed, you moved for a Council of 7ni/iisters 
 to consider the financial matters only. Eight voted for, and twelve 
 
12 
 
 against vour resolution. From the expressions made before the vote 
 was taken, by some who voted against your resolution, you cannot 
 doubt that a majority would have voted for a Council, if both matters 
 had been included in your motion. 
 
 Here again, you strongly object to our action. Dr. Pryor had 
 been comdemned you say upon evidence that was " utterly worthless, 
 and from the influence of which he "still sulVe.sr and yet you con- 
 demn us for desiring to afford an excellent opportunity of bringing 
 these witnesses to the trying test of cross-examination, and demon- 
 Btrating the worthlessness of their testimony. If our Pastor had 
 Buffered, if truth had suffered, from oui vote and your vote, on hearing 
 that evidence read, surely, surely, you ought not only to have rejoiced 
 in, but to have sought an opportunity to relieve the sufferer. 
 
 For ourselves, we considered the two cases too closely related to 
 each other to be satisftictorily investigated separately ; and it was evident 
 that when a council was convened they took a similar view of the 
 matter, inasmuch as thev deferred a review of the evidence and their 
 decision, until all the evidence on both charges had been placed before 
 them. Of course, the two charges are very different in their nature, 
 but, then, if it was found that the conduct of the accused in one case 
 tallied with that in the other, you will see that it would be of great 
 assistance to a council to consider both cases at the same time. For 
 example, to a council on tlie financial matter only, it would be dilficult 
 to show what became of the missing funds without going into the 
 immorality case ; and to a council on the latter it would be difiicult to 
 understand how Dr. Pryor, with a minister's salary, could bo in a 
 position so frequently to bestow alleged charities upon Mrs. McMillan. 
 It would be an unsatisfactory thing for a council to decide upon one 
 branch only of a minister's conduct, and to leave his conduct in other 
 branches open to debate — unsatisfiictory, we should suppose, to all 
 concerned. When Dr. Pryor went to the Association, it was recom- 
 men.led that both matters should bo submitted to a council. And you 
 should not forget that at the time you moved for a council on the one 
 matter only, how widely the course of the Church, in the immorality 
 case had been characterized as arbitrary, vindictive, uncharitable, 
 unjust and unchristian, and surely it was not unreasonable, that if - 
 Council was to be called to consider the linaiunal matter, tlie Church 
 should insist upon a review of tlui other case, at the same time, in order 
 to vindicate themselves from the grcvious charges made against them, 
 . before their brethren. 
 
 The Central Baptist Association met at Canning, on the 8th of 
 
'''^'^ of t,,e 
 '^'^ '^"'^ f/ieir 
 t'"^'^ ^>«fore 
 
 /" «"e case 
 
 ^e d//ncu]( 
 " '"to the 
 ''^^'^^uh to 
 ' ''« in a 
 
 '/'Oil one 
 "i other 
 ' to all 
 
 nd you 
 'ti o/,e 
 "■alky 
 fabie, 
 t if n 
 "rcii 
 
 13 
 
 June, and upon the earnest request of Dr. Fryor, and his friends, 
 recommended this Church " to invite a Council to be mutually chosen 
 by Dr. Pryor, and the Church to consider the charges that have 
 been made against Dr. Pryor, and the action of the Church thereon." 
 
 As soon as this recommendation came before us, (June 17th,) we 
 expressed our " cordial approval" of it, and at once proceeded to carry 
 it into etfect. Now here we acknowledge we made a grave error. 
 We made it, it is true, on account of our deference to the opinions of 
 a body, composed of delegates from many churches ; but that is a poor 
 apology. No Baptist Church, should adopt any principle, without 
 first thoroughly testing its soundness, no matter from what body of 
 men that principle emanates. The association might properly, in our 
 opinion, recommend a church to invite a council ; but not a council to be 
 " mutually chosen." We think this is not the right method of choosing 
 councils. As in a government, rests the right and authority to 
 appoint and nominate a commission to try offenders, so in the indi- 
 vidual church, and no where else rests the right and authority to invite 
 and nominate a council. 
 
 A Chui'ch wishing a council should either invite other Churches to 
 send specified number, and allow the churches to make the selection, 
 or the Church desiring the council should make their own selection ; 
 either of which courses would be in harmony with Baptist practice. 
 But it is, we think, unheard of among Baptists, for a member under 
 discipline to have power to choose councillors, or to veto the choice 
 made by the Church to which he belongs. We hope never to hear 
 again the epithet "■ ex parte " in connection with a council that an 
 independent Baptist Church may call. What ! put a member of a 
 Church under discipline on a level with the Church of Christ, whose 
 painful duty it is to see that a wholesome discipline is enforced ? To 
 the error of appearing to endorse such a principle, we now confess 
 with regret, that we have seemed to give our approval. May none of 
 the Churches follow us in this. But as we have said before, we did it 
 in our too great deference to the Association. But we bear in mind 
 that our delegates told us how excited was the state of things when 
 the Association made this recommendation. Had there been more 
 time for deliberation, and less excitement, we are persuaded the 
 Association would have avoided that feature of the recommendation to 
 which we are now referring. It 'is not sound doctrine that the 
 accused should choose his own judges. Juries are not selected half 
 by the crown and half by the prisoner. Try to get a council 
 "mutually chosen." Is the Church to choose whom they will, and 
 
14 
 
 the accused to do the same? Then, the Church may invite men 
 who are considered wholly incompetent hy the accused, and they 
 may have to "invite" men whom tliey themselves regard as unquali- 
 f sd for the high office. Again, is the choice to be mutual as regards 
 each councillor? Then, if you have a bad man to deal with, he 
 may easily thwart every effort to select the members of the council. 
 To adopt this meth^^d of choosing councils is out of the question. It 
 is not necessary for us to refer to our own experience to illustrate the 
 manifold difficulties which surround such a course. 
 
 "VVe failed in our effort to carry out the recommendation of the 
 Association. We need not go into the particulars of our negotiations. 
 Suffice it to say, that we think we imposed no terms ou Dr. Tryor 
 which could be reasonably open to objection. 
 
 Thus failing, we then requested the assistance of five brethren 
 living at a distance, who, as we believed, would have examined the 
 whole aflHiir justly and impartially. These five brethren came to 
 Haliflvx, and were about to enter upon their work, when you read a 
 letter to them from Dr. Pryor, protesting against their authority to 
 deal with his interests, and formally forbidding them to do aught to 
 affect him. In your letter you denominate these brethren " ex parte 
 judges." How can you do this ? Would it not be wrong to say that 
 our juries are ex parte juries, and our judges ex parte judges? And 
 yet these are appointed by the Government. No prisoner has a 
 right to interfere in their appointment. lias not every Baptist 
 Church full authority to select and invite a Council, and upon what 
 principle can a member resist the oflices of a council thus chosen? 
 
 Dr. Pryor would not appear, and without for a moment doubting 
 their entire competency to deal with his case, this Council, adher- 
 ing to the principle acted upon by Festus, informed us that in 
 the absence of the accused, they would not inquire into the truth 
 of the charges brought against him. Such being the case, the 
 Church, anxious to have a full investigation of all the matters referred 
 to in the recommendation of the Association, at length, through the 
 intervention of the Council of five, came to an agreement with Dr. 
 Pryor to accept his own demands, and by dint of the most persevering 
 efforts got all the ari-angements concluded for in^•iting the Council of 
 twelve. 
 
 This Council met, sat for seven, days, heard testimony, heard argu- 
 ment, and delivered their decision. When that decision came before 
 us for our consideration, we felt that for reasons we then put on 
 record, we could not as a Christian Church, couscientiously adopt the 
 
 m>m 
 
I 
 
 emu, , ""'i"«^''- 
 
 ZT'^'' Of ,,, 
 
 ' ^''^ brethren 
 «'^«ni;„ed the 
 
 ^^"*"« C'-ime to 
 
 "^ -^o" read a 
 
 f"^/io.ity to 
 
 "^"^ ^"S'^it to 
 
 , ^° «aj that 
 S^'^ And 
 °««^ i^as a 
 'T Jia/jtist 
 'Po„ ^vhat 
 oseu ? 
 
 '^^ adiier. 
 that in 
 '0 truth 
 se, the 
 efevred 
 ?^' the 
 ^i Br. 
 'ering. 
 
 ^'i of 
 
 tbre 
 on 
 the 
 
 15 
 
 findings of the Council as our basis of action. This is the head and 
 front of our offending. Upon this point you are very severe upon the 
 Church. You seek to crush us by the overwhelming weight of your 
 censures. You hold us uji to view as proud, self-concefted, presump- 
 tuous, and we know not what beside, just because we have persevered 
 in carrying out the directions of Scripture, as judged by ourselves, in a 
 case of painful discipline. This is not only the prerogative of a Church, 
 but it is its boundeu duty, and from this course we could not allow 
 ourselvt to be turned aside, not even by the high regard which we 
 have been wont to attach to your opinions. 
 
 As this is a point of very great importance, and one on which your 
 statements show that your views depart widely from what we hold to 
 be the teachings of Scripture, we will discuss the matter at some 
 length. We quote the following statements, from your letter : — 
 
 " And hence the momentous importance of the crisis that has been 
 created by the bold rejection, by the Granville Street Church, of the 
 judgment and advice of the Council, recently assembled in Halifax." 
 . . . . " The game principle of ordinary honesty, required sub- 
 mission to the judgment of the council, and your rejection of its 
 judgment is an insult to the Association, and to the Council, and 
 is most unjust and dishonorable, as regards Dr. Pry or." . . . "In 
 the midst of the meaningless distinctions, and childish quibbling, that 
 disfigure the resolution, there may be discovered the controlling notion 
 that it was for the church members to judge the judgment of the 
 council, and to enquire and know why they should differ from the 
 opinion which the church had formed." 
 
 Now, we maintain, that every Baptist Church has a right, and is 
 bound to "judge the judgment" of any council to which they have 
 submitted any question for their advice, and if that council differ in 
 opinion, from the church, the latter is bound to enquire, and know 
 upon what grounds they so differ. But let us here say, that in the 
 course which we adopted, the Church, intended no insult to the Council 
 nor to the Association, neither did they aim to inflict any injustice 
 upon Dr. Pryor. The manner of receiving '.e decision of the Council, 
 we regard as courteous and respectful. When it was formally 
 submitted to us for consideration, we appointed a committee to 
 examine Minutes of Council, and the evidence, in order to gather any 
 information which might assist us in carrying out the recommendation 
 of the Council. That committee did its work, and reported at a 
 subsequent meeting. At this meeting, the Church used this language: 
 ^^Resolvedy That with respect to the recommendation which concludes 
 
16 
 
 the decision, the Church regard it as alike due to the Conned, ;u| 
 
 to Dr Pryor that that recommendation be promptly acted upon, bi 
 
 in approaching the reconsideration which the Council have adv.seJ 
 
 the Church is sorry to be compelled to say that they do not fed 
 
 warranted in adopting the findings of the Council, as their basis ol 
 
 reconsideration." We believed then, a« we do now, that we treated 
 
 the Association and the Council, with deference and respect. We 
 
 acted upon a principle clearly laid down in the New Testament for 
 
 our direction, in discharging the obligations there placed upon us. AVe| 
 
 claim not the honor of bringing this principle to the light. It is on<- 
 
 which is dear to Baptist Churches, one which they have long hehh and 
 
 iealously defended. With the accountability of a Church, we were 
 
 then deeply impressed, and we still believe that no Christian Church 
 
 is at liberty to hand over the responsibility of defending its doctrines, 
 
 or the preserving of the purity of its morals to any other body. 1 hey 
 
 may seek advice from other Churches, or from a Council to assist them 
 
 in their deliberations, but they are no where authorized to yield their 
 
 own views of God's word, to the opinions of others, nor can they t:ike 
 
 the advice of others, when to follow that advice they won d be 
 
 compelled to a course forbidden by conscience and Scripture. When, 
 
 then, you may ask, is a Church warranted in taking the advice of a 
 
 council ? . f 
 
 1 When such advice is in harmony with their own views ot 
 Scriptural dire, ion. They may have formed these views before 
 receiving the advice of a council ; or their views may have been 
 brought'' in harmony with those of a council by wise instructions 
 accompanying such advice. 
 
 2 \ Church might be in doubt concerning which of two or more 
 courses to pursue in a case of discipline, when, in neither case, special 
 Scripture direction could be found. The advice of a council would, in 
 such an instance, probably turn the scale, and be of great service to a 
 Church; and it woidd afford a strong probability that the course 
 recommended would be the safe one for the Church to follow. 
 
 But a Church is not warranted in taking the advice of a Council 
 when that advice is in antagonism to the course which they are morally 
 bound, as a Church of Christ, to pursue. In such a case they are not 
 only not bound to accept such advice, but they are bound, in the most 
 solemn and sacred manner, to reject it, for they are amenable to the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, tlieii Divine Head. 
 
 A Church is not ut liberty to pledge itself beforehand to accept 
 the decision of a council, for they have no varrant that such advice 
 
 H^ 
 
^'"« ^« the ConnciJ, aj 
 --P^iy acted upon, ,n. 
 - !;7'-'i imve advised, 
 '^'^' they do not feeJ 
 '""^''' «« their basis of 
 ' "«^v, that we treated 
 'ice and respect. We 
 ' ^«^v Testament for 
 « pJaced upon us. We 
 
 J hove long J,eJd, and 
 a Churcl), we were 
 "« Christian Church 
 ^^«^J"ig its doctrines, 
 'y otJier body. Tj,ey 
 °""^'I to assist them 
 "'•^^ed to yieJd their 
 ■s» nor can tJiey u^e 
 'l^ they would be 
 ►;>cnpture. When, 
 ^'"g the advice of a 
 
 'eir own views of 
 
 lese views before 
 
 's may have been 
 
 wise instructions 
 
 ' of two or more 
 ther case, special 
 council Would, in 
 reat service to a 
 that the course 
 follow. 
 
 ^ of a Council 
 hey are morally 
 se they are not 
 "'^» in the most 
 "enable to the 
 
 I 
 
 17 
 
 and to 
 
 accept 
 
 »t such advice 
 
 will be in harmony with Scripture teachings. The council may be 
 called, and their advice given ; but a Church must compare such 
 advice with the directions of Scripture, before acting upon it. Such a 
 view of the case prompted some of our members to say before a 
 council was called, that they would not pleclge themselves, to abide by 
 its decision. Upon the hypotliesis that a Cliurch is bound to accept and 
 act upon the decision of a Council, the congregational form of Omrch 
 government taught in the Scriptures, and believed in, and acted upon by 
 the Baptists, would be at an end. To a body apart from, and less than 
 the Church, there is conceded the authority to control the Church in 
 an act of discipline, or to pronounce upon some article of faith, or 
 principle in Church government. Admit this, and to what will it 
 inevitably and directly lead ? There is no fixed number, of which 
 a Council must consist. It may be composed of two, or twenty. 
 According to the tenor of your statements, a council may be called, 
 and to them may be committed the responsibility of considering and 
 deciding a matter which the New Testament declares is exclusively 
 for church adjudication, and the Church would be compelled to accept 
 the conclusions of the council, whether they regarded them in har- 
 mony with God's word or not. This leads to a form of Church 
 government the very opposite to that adopted by tlie Baptists. 
 It would issue most certainly in such a result, if, in addition to the 
 ground already taken by you, it should be made incumbent on a 
 Church to call a Council at the request of one or more of its members. 
 If Baptists adopt this as a principle of Church government, then 
 against those held by other religious bodies they could have nothing 
 to say. Councils may advise, but they can never control Baptist 
 Churches, for so soon as a Church yields its functions to another 
 body, it is no longer a Baptist Church. 
 
 Having had, tlierefore, an unquestionable right, and further, it being 
 our solemn duty to " judge the judgment," we approached the con- 
 sideration of the Council's decision unfettered by any obligation to 
 act upon conclusions which we might feel ourselves not warranted 
 in adopting. After due deliberation, so many objections presented 
 themselves against basing our action upon the findings of the Council, 
 that we felt ourselves solemnly bound not to mould our course by 
 them. The principal of these we placed on record. Let us briefly 
 review them : — 
 
 1. " The Council, in fi-aining a moral decision, which, from the great 
 notoriety of the charges made, and of the vehement denial of tlic accused of 
 fais guilt, must of necessity obtain a very wide circulation, have adopted the 
 
 M 
 
f ' 
 
 18 
 
 I lie (l('cini()ii on tlic fifuf . 1 
 of. tl.o c ,urjr,,s, were exnlicuWc u- ■ V' "f, ^'"■«'' y«''"->^ H.l,l,a ,.,i i„ ,,> 
 
 ■•" Dr. P^or', i, „„ce„c " Z^"'!'" "l""" " "-I-- 'I-'- belief 
 kno,,t|,i,? We take tt' I ""'""'"e. You ask „s |,„,, „„ 
 
 .poke, as he rea, .tU:^""-; ° -,"" '""*'" "' ""= Co,u,X 
 
 principles you lay ,!„;„, |,„j ,k "'f ^* ' ''o ""' '•'"P'-'e the general 
 evlanations," a„,l thus a,^ ,1h J ,T ""'r'""''^ l'°""» '° "verbal 
 till you come to the enj If the T ''""'■ ''"»" "■" •'--•°» 
 ."bmitted. At this point 11'^"' '""" "" """' ""'"'"■» 
 " verbal explanations.' Afte Thif !" TT' '"^ "* -"-" 
 
 of the document. Here occ ,'f hi "'""""''"^ '" ™" "'" '■="'•'"•■«'- 
 »ay „«.,. somewhat in the aCe wav'^r ' " ^'"^ <'"" ^'°"-"> 
 further." What docs this hu^tnl^' °{ ''""'°' ""■'"' "".vthing 
 
 the Council expected the P r^d f „ ^'' ""''""""""^ "'"' 
 
 reading the document. It cannf, 1 ^'™ T*"' "l''^"«'0'>' while 
 place, if the President uttered 1^1" ""^. ,'"=" "''• ^" ""^ ^^O"" 
 the views of his fellow-com lillor?,, ™ """ '"'" '«" •■'g'-- "i.h 
 repudiated what he said. The' S n, '''°"'" ''"<= "' »'-« 
 
 «.rf<.wrf &•, ««fe„„„^ ^„^ •» „' "°'.''° *0i ••"'■•I hy their silence 
 
 " The President of Council gaCe^W "'"'' °° """ ""■""- ■- 
 
 to in the decision read by hil to the ChuTch • °" """" ""'"'^ '^''"'^^ ^ 
 
 Ihe written decision thpn ,^^ 
 regard to Dr. Pryor'« /uiU '1'''^ 'T'^^^^ ^ ^^'"^'^''e^t opinion, in 
 really entertained. We thlrrr '"" ''^^ ^^^^^''^ ^'^ Council 
 
 "^ the document should have been so 
 
"» fill- s„ , '''^"^''' 
 
 "« ^''•'^ not to th,.l, 
 
 f ^" tJ^e other, 
 
 ^'a'e their belief 
 
 ^^'^ us ho^Y ^ve 
 
 ^^ ^''e Council, 
 
 ' ^^»»J«, as our 
 
 ' ««• Wntton 
 
 '^^^ '^J verbal 
 
 '^e^ho genera] 
 "'«to"ve,.5j,j 
 
 ^ ^'le decision 
 ^'^•ee matters 
 
 ■■"^G certain 
 
 ' ^'eniaincler 
 |ie CounciJ) 
 ''^ a'ljtiiing 
 ^.^«'"y tiiat 
 t'ons TvJiiie 
 ^^iG second 
 o'"ee wit], 
 ° at once 
 •'r silence 
 "iites ;— _ 
 
 referred 
 
 inion, in 
 Councij 
 'een so 
 
 19 
 
 framed, as to express the real convictions of the Council. It is 
 
 because the document points us to " verbal explanations" that it is not 
 
 pf itself, a safe guide. But then, could we act upon verbal statements ? 
 
 Of course not. 
 
 2. "The decision h not correct, in regard to the cn.«o of Mrs. Mor^^nn. 
 Ina.siinicli us the Chin'<'li put, in evidence, and tlie Council reci«ivt>d certain 
 stiiteiiu'iits niadi' by Dr. Pryor, to a committee of the ("iinrch, and reduced to 
 writinjr by them in terms su;.'<fested by Dr I'ryor lilinselt'. (.Sec copy of 
 minutes of Council, 7th Session)." 
 
 The Council say, " that in the absence of all evidence in the case 
 
 of Mrs. Rachel Morjjan, the Council dismiss said case." We look 
 
 upon the decision as incorrect in this particular, since there was 
 
 evidence in that case. Tlie minutes of the Council show that 
 
 " written statements made by Dr. Pryor, were presented," and that 
 
 with these, the " testimony" closed. If those statements reveal a line 
 
 of conduct consistent with what may be expected from a Christian 
 
 minister, then the Council were substantially correct; but we confess 
 
 our inability so to read them. 
 
 ;>. " The decision is unaccompanied by the evidence adihiced, and docs 
 not show how the Council readied their conclusions in tiie liiceof tlie evidence. 
 T^he Church was anxious to be informed how the facts adduced by them in 
 support of these ehari'es could consist with the absence of guilt." 
 
 Crowell's Church Manual, page 252, contains the following sen- 
 tence : '• The investigation before such a Council should be thorough, 
 and a full record of all the facts proved should be entered on its 
 minutes, with the names of witnesses, and a copy should be trans- 
 mitted to. the Church, who may proceed to an origiind investigation if 
 not satisfied with that of the Council." Here the proper course is 
 (dearly set forth. Instead of this course the Council gave us only the 
 bald decision, and it was with some dilficulty that even a copy of their 
 minutes was afterwards procured. Here was an " advisory Council " 
 giving advice. They advised us " to reconsider" our action, and in so 
 doing referred us to their verdict. "Were we to act upon thnt advice 
 in the light of their conclusions, without being furnished with the 
 data upon which those conclusions were based? To our minds the 
 evidence against Dr. Pryor left no way of escape from the supposition 
 of guilt. The words of the decision point to a different belief on the 
 part of the Council, and imply that another and intelligible rationale 
 of the facts of the evidence was possible. Why did they not make an 
 effort at least to convince us of our erjror. We might then have 
 seen good reason for changing our opinions. 
 
 4. " With respect to the action of the Church, they take this opportunity 
 of saying that the decision is meagre and vague. They asked ' Whether their 
 
20 
 
 1 ' 
 
 i I 
 
 action was such as sho>iltl have boon taken uiuUt all the circumstances j al 
 if not, why not ; and what vouivv. the Clmrcli should liavc adopted " ail 
 nlthougli that aetion exii-ndcd over a period of four nion»lis, and euihrac' 
 many important points in C'hureh goveriunent and diseipliiie, in rejiard 
 whieh the CInneh fully expected a dcfniite and <:uidin}i o[»ini(m, yet (>nly twi 
 t-uhjects are mentioned in the decisiou, viz., the char;:;e of ' precipitancy il 
 virtually susi)endin;r Dr. Pryor (m the occiUTcnce of the uiduijjpy nicident ul 
 rieasant Street,' &c., and 'the matter of calliujr a Council, on (me only ol 
 which a decision was ^'iven. In rej^ard to the formi-r, the Couned say, ' what- 
 ever mistakes' the Deacons uiav have couunit ted. they are not, in view ot the] 
 suddenness with which their duties devolved upoi\ them, charjreahle with want] 
 of aifection. What mistakes did the Deacons make? The Church wisheil, 
 and considered themselves entitled to he specifically infi)rmed on the ponit.' 
 
 5. "While invi'stifjratint,' the char;,'es afjainst Dr. Pryor, the Council, not- 
 withstandiufi the ohje('tions of the Ciuirch thereto, adopted the procedure of 
 Courts of Law, instead of that of advisory Church Councils; but, m consuh-r- 
 in.r the action of the Church, thcr reversed their method of proceedini,'." 
 
 The brethren appointed bj the Church as their representatives 
 before the Council, were taken by snrpri.'ie when the Council compelled 
 them to put in written allegations against Dr. Pryor, and to appear as 
 l^.'osecutors. This was an altitude which the Cliurch had never 
 assumed, and one which the Church still regard as of doubtful pro- 
 priety. We expected that the Council would have carefully investi- 
 gated the whole case, in relation to both Dr. Pryor and the Church, 
 in the manner usually adopted by advisory Church Councils. The 
 course adopted during the investigation of the charges against Dr. 
 Pryor, furnished you a rare occasion for the exercise of your great 
 legal abilities; and no sharpness known in legal courts was left untried 
 by you in preventing the admission of testimony otfercd by the 
 Church. But when the Church was put upon its trial, the nine 
 allegations which had been presented against them were requested, or 
 directed, to be withdrawn. The Church had been arrainged before 
 the Association for grevious offences, alleged to have been committed 
 against their late Pastor. Nay, more. These alleged offences in- 
 duced the Association to recommend the Church to invite a Council. 
 These offences were grouped together into nine distinct allegations, 
 and laid before the Council on behalf of Dr. Pryor. The Church was 
 fully prepared with evidence, chiefly documentary, to show the utter 
 groundlessness of the charges made, and thus vindicate themselves 
 before the Council and the Churches. Here was little room for the 
 exercise of legal shrewdness and acumen. The means at the command 
 of the Church for its defence were simple and direct ; and it would, 
 most assuredly, have been proved over and over again, that the 
 accusations made against the Church were without foundation. Against 
 the course pursued by the Council we protested at the time — not 
 
I 
 
 21 
 
 I, ""- POIIJt.'' 
 
 ';;"^;'^« 'Appear as 
 ^'^"'•^■'' ^^«d never 
 
 ^ ''^f'Uy investi. ■ 
 7' ^'-Church, 
 
 " Councils. The 
 
 !""^es a^raiast Dr 
 
 ^«« of jour ,,,,; 
 
 ' ^«« ^eft untried 
 ^^"'•^^ b^. „,, 
 ''•^''^^' the ,i„e 
 
 "*^ ^^quested, or 
 
 "■'-ainge,} before 
 
 "^^^«" committed 
 
 ■«^^ offences i„. 
 
 "^■^« -"^ Councii. 
 
 "^^ ''^"egations, 
 
 r ^^"''•ch H'as 
 
 ^'^^^ t'^e utter 
 
 ^^ t^'emselves 
 
 '^0^ for the 
 
 ^''e command 
 
 "^^ Jt Would 
 
 '"' iim the 
 
 '"• gainst 
 t'rae~-not 
 
 i 
 
 against tlio course prr se, but against its adoption at so late a stage 
 in the proceedings, and under such circumstances as wouUl inevitably 
 defeat one of the objects of calling the Council, — the obtaining of a 
 distinct and unequivocal decision from the Council upon each of the 
 accusations which had been made against us, before the Association 
 and elsewhere. We thought it due to us that such jjrave accusations 
 should have been pronounced upon, one by one, and the more so that 
 they were re-alleged in definite form before the Council. 
 
 [We may here notice a mistake into which we think you have fallen 
 in regard to these nine allegations. You say, " I gave in written 
 charges against the Church, or those who had been active in the 
 prosecution, which I withflrew in consequence of the Council thinking 
 that their functions did not extend beyond the complaints of the 
 Church, and Dr. 1 lyor, against each other." The minutes of Council, 
 contain the following remarks : " Dr. Pryor, laid upon the table, his 
 allegations." "The Council recjuests Dr. Pryor to withdraw the 
 charges against the Church, that it may investigate the action of the 
 Church, according to the terms of the following resolution" &c. — 
 " Whereupon said charges were withdrawn by Judge Johnston, on 
 behalf of Dr. Pryor." From these extracts from the minutes of 
 Council, it would appear that Dr. Pryor was the author of the charges 
 against the Church, that he and you led the Council to believe that 
 they were Dr. Pryor's charges, and that they were withdrawn, in 
 order that the Council might consider the matter by the terms of a 
 certain resolution. From your letter, however, the fact comes out, 
 that you were the real author of the charges, and moreover, that Dr. 
 Pryor had no such complaints to make against the Church, inasmuch 
 as the complaints contained in those allegations, did not, by your 
 showing, come within the jurisdiction of the Council, whose "functions 
 did not extend beyond the complaints of the Church, and Dr. Pryor, 
 against each other." The Council fiincied that Dr. Pryor was the 
 author of these allegations, the Church lool'ed at the matter in the 
 same way, but it now appears that you became the real jirosecutor of 
 the Church. This fact raises a doubt in our minds, whether, after all, 
 we have not blamed Dr. Pryor for many things for which you were 
 more responsible than he.] 
 
 G. " Tlie Council would not admit the ti'stiniony <riven and s'fxned, b" 
 Margaret Robinson, hofore a Couunittce of tlic Church ; whilst at the same 
 time they received as evidence, from Dr. Pryor, and Dr. Crawley, purol}- ex 
 parte documentary testimony in regard to Dr. Pryor's character." 
 
 You say, " the Council is reproached, for listening to this latter 
 
22 
 
 testimony." Tinf .'c r.^,. /. . 
 
 "i-"e.-./ We oyL'L-t, Te:::;;;^"': «- °">«'°'. --^ 0,0,.,. .1 
 
 Kob,„s„„, ,l,e testimo„v Wvo,, L "" '^^^^ »f M^^-a. 
 
 JU'.tly, wl,o„ „„,,„,„, hert ilr ""'"'" Council ,,ia'„„. J 
 
 '"» kPevv al,„„,t „„„,.,„ ., 7., ^""""'te". from pe,.s„,„ „f „,|,„°' 
 - .«e a sca„„a,, whie,, ba"; l- ",:: V^'^ °'' 'v'-h eo„,, „:t 
 been b,.„„,,, fc_, „,„, ,_^^^^,^ ,„ "co, : ."^'r "- «"-". ..o,. „a,I 
 C- "'■ndge wore s„„.I,t ,o ,« „e„ied S to, "*■'• ""' "^"^' *""> 
 
 '■ ','Tli".Klic„,„l„«i„„,i,„- '^"<''' "«> "ot the case. 
 
 fe^^^-rL'i'-'^" s, •'^:;Kr's'^,«---^ Of Co,,,., e, 
 
 n-.o.-p:es o/i..u- :,:!:, :™)-»;, of »- or .. ..,.,„.„„„,., 
 
 Do you talk of «p„,,, C„„„er Tf^" "»"" °f cross-examination ? 
 t"' ^."'-"»-«-;<«rt. or no ' y"1 T^""'^ -M-'- ? H-l,at wa 
 «;;™™»'ion. You k„„,, ,; , „L „f ;r"'."''' "" ™'"« °f --OS ! 
 You tno,v it u one of the r ,,,,"1 , ™f<'-g"""ls of society " 
 Jev'-lfo,.the„i.,„overv<f ,:,,""' """ ""^' ^«--o„s tests et 
 Dr.I .-.vcr's past -ife, a,,Lee : hi ^17 ""■ '™'^'»-^' ---•«; 
 that he thonght he couW •• .stake! kJ°'"°"'''" !"» innoeen,.: 
 >-»''hoCo,n.cilref,,seJ„sth tv :;''^™r;' "'»" "» p„i,„ „„. 
 «^.m,„ation „po„ „„ i„p„„,„= " '"''""8 '"■" '» ".e test of cro J 
 kuou- » was „„,. Nor oa.fit ," ■ ■"■• ^*'"'' *'» "g'" ? Vo , 
 
 r™~llel to ,h„, „„^„^^, - t e Cor •','; '""'"' "'"' ""^ -"■« w 
 f'"t ,vo„M he no excuse e'-e?"'. ""■"' ™^"'='"° l^'-- Pryjr 
 "■•>' .1- Chu,.ch, as we have c!c.;, , 2"''\ " ""'•" ^ ^^^<>«^^Z 
 op,«r.„„it.v to D,.. Pr,„„ „f ,1 ^i ::; ""'"'T' »'"i""-> '.-".ely 
 " ,1 « ';;^"'1« of the Committee. ' ^ ^ ^ """S""' «*>•""» ^utTce,! 
 
 B"t;;is"r:::r;:^;:f;r -lamination as „,.„. 
 
 ■"Portant rebutting te3,imJ^. fw t," '•"'" "'■^'^•^""■'S -■■ i n 
 %', '^"'I jour langnage is , t,v,„„. 7° "'"'"""" ^«"' ftelings rise 
 
 ;."" -"-'--'ed. f hat the C 111 ' ■7,'"; '•■'"^""So i' ' ..°au,II 
 
 '."g testimony, we thought, an 1 ' I,' '""«"""""«> this reb„ l 
 
 'lunk, was necessary. If, 
 
 -\ 
 
^' ^ounc ] ,Ji,j ^ '''>• 
 •om ne ' ' ""'»^^^'- of 
 
 ' ni.innoi- of p 
 
 ross « '^'^^^nta/ 
 
 „ •, *^^^at Tvas 
 „ , *^ of cross- 
 '''^' of society " 
 tests ever 
 
 V"' '""oeem-e 
 f ^ Po/„t, ,,,, 
 
 ' '^'^ of cross. 
 
 '.''S^^'? You 
 
 !' course was 
 
 "^0 .-utfered 
 
 ' -"^^ a^ove. 
 '"^ eertufn 
 '^'■"i's rise 
 
 "'s re;,„t. 
 ^f ti-iie, 
 
 23 
 
 it should have been admitted to meet the defence set up by Dr. 
 ^Pryor ; if false, it should have been admitted to enable a Baptist 
 minister to show to the world that a story very generally believed to 
 be in accordance with fact, and from the influence of which that 
 minister was then and still is suffering, had no foundation in fact. 
 Your charge that we sought to revive the transaction alluded to " from 
 its long oblivion," and your remarks in reference to the address which 
 " the individual alleged to have been offended " united in presenting 
 to Dr. Pryor in Wolfville, may best be disposed of by an extract or 
 two from a letter which he felt called upon to forward to a member of 
 this Church, upon the perusal of your published letter : — 
 
 " As some of the nicnibers of the Ciranvillc Street Church aiv. in Jiulrre 
 Johnston's Ictt<;r represented as havin<jr, from iinj)roper motives, and in an 
 unchristian spirit, endeavoured to brin;f forward evidence from transactions 
 lon<^ buried and forgotten, for the sole purpose of injurinf; Dr. l?ryor, I think 
 it i)roi)er to state distinctly and positively, that I was never asked by any 
 memVter or friend of Granville Street Church to go to Halifax for the pur- 
 pose of iiivinji evidence in Dr. Prvor's case. 
 
 " In explanation of ray subsequent treatment of Dr. Pryor, afler I had 
 received his letter * * * expressing iiis deep re<>ret and ixipentance for 
 what liad hapi)ened, I hoix?d such were his real feelings, and determined in 
 view of this * ♦ * to say notiiing farther on the subject, but try my 
 utmost to forifct what wius psist. Tliis I liave done, * * * and endea- 
 vored on every occasion, to act towards Dr. Piyor as if notiiir.g liad passed, 
 altiiough, I never could look upon him, as I liad done, and always treated 
 him with a certain de<iree of reserve. I attended his ministry, and when he 
 was aliout to leave Wolfville, to go to the Dnited States, I with othere, 
 sisiued an address to him, this Iniing in accordance with my usual course of 
 conduct towards him." 
 
 " Such course towards Dr. Pryor T should still have pursued, and shouM have 
 as I have long done, scrupulously abstained from anythinfi which might injiu'C 
 his character, or recall or make puhlic, what ha<l occasioned so much <listress, 
 had not Dr. Pryor, in July last, written me a letter, calling upon me to bear 
 witness to what both he and I knew to be a falsehood. * * ♦ 
 
 When the gentleman alluded to came to Halifax and urged his 
 claim to be heard, we, feeling that he had a right to be heard, and that 
 the nature of Dr. Pryor's defence demanded his testimony, promoted 
 his efforts and desired the Council to take his statement. If the 
 transaction alluded to has been sought to be " revived from its long 
 oblivion," the closinti sentence of the forecroiuff extracts must convince 
 you that Dr. Pryor himself, and no one else, is responsible for it. 
 
 You and Dr. Crawley were Dr. Pryor's advocates, and yet you 
 took the witness stand, and gave evidence on !iis behalf. Was that 
 " perfectly regular ?" You know that in your Court you would not 
 permit a lawyer to act as counsel and witness in the same cause, and 
 
jl 
 
 If 
 
 24 
 
 it does not require much thought to understand the propriety of suci 
 
 a course. 
 
 8. " Though conducting their proceedings after the manner of Courts ol 
 Law, many of thr. Councillors vore the constant guests of the accused an(" 
 his advocates." 
 
 When the Church inrited » Council of fire brethren, whom you 
 have called an ex parte Council, they placed a copy 6i the following 
 letter in the hands of each of the five, on or before their arrival in 
 
 Halifax : — 
 
 Halifax, July 31, 1867. 
 
 To THE BllK-niUEK COMPOSING THE COUNCIL ABOUT TO BE CONVENED 
 
 IN Halifax at the kequest of the Gkanville Stueet Chukch. 
 
 The unliappy circumstances which have given origin to the Council of 
 which you are members, and the measures taken thereon by the Church, have 
 resulted in a want of harmony in feeling and action between our late Pastor, 
 the Rev. Dr. Pryor, and a large majority of the Church. Such being the 
 case, the bretlu-en comi^sing that majority, from feelings of delicacy, have 
 thought it advisable that the domestic hospitalities which they otherwise 
 would, as a matter of course, have extended to your Council, should be waived 
 pending the investigation. They have also deemed it prudent that in any 
 interviews other than those of an official character, Avhich may take place 
 between members of the Council and thi'inselves, the subjects under investi- 
 gation should not be discussed. In thus acting, they are only anxious that 
 they may be free from even the susfMcion of having in private conversation 
 attempted to imiircss the minds and iiifTuence the decision of the brethren 
 composing the Council. I am consequently directed to state that the lodgings 
 provided will be made known to you, on your annval in the city, at the 
 residence of Bro. Selden, Gran\'ille Street. 
 
 B. II. Eaton, Clerk. 
 
 These five brethren, and the Rev. Mr. March, who was afterwards 
 invited by us, were, accordingly, not entertained as our guests during 
 their investigations. You have given us your valuable testimony to 
 the effect that none of them were the guests of the accused or his 
 advocates. We looked upon this step of ours as one of the most vital 
 importance. We desired that Dr. Pryor should be judged by the 
 evidence that might be produced for and against him, and by nothing 
 
 else. 
 
 On the other hand, the six judges selected by Dr. Pryor, became 
 your guest . and the guests of the accused ; and they did this, too, 
 when they knew the feelings of the Church in the matter. You seem 
 almost to admit that this proceeding was not right. But what is your 
 answer to our objection ? It is, in our opinion, an extraordinary one. 
 It is this : " The six councillors selected by the Church concurred in, 
 and subscribed their names to, the judgment of the Council." We 
 should not have expected that answer from a defender of the " funda- 
 mental principles of British jurisprudence." You know very well how 
 
 -immm 
 
d th 
 
 25 
 
 P^^Pt-iety of ., r 
 
 "^^areful British judges are to warn juries, charged with grave matters, 
 
 manner of n ^ have no communication with others, on the subject of the trial. 
 
 ^ ^f the accused "f ^^" know that even the constable who guards the door, is put under 
 
 the 
 
 ^^'•^«''^3J, 1S67 
 nn to the rr. . 
 
 L'cts »;.,. ^^''!' pWt> 
 
 'nvesti- 
 
 unfler 
 
 ^^« '"Afterwards 
 ^"ests duri,,,. 
 ' ^^^^'-n^onj. t^ 
 T''"^ or fi/, 
 f ^o.st vita] 
 ^f^ V ti,e 
 ' ^ynothim 
 
 'S 
 
 ^^''^ became 
 '^ tbi.s, too, 
 
 ^o« seem 
 ^'"^^ '"s J'our 
 "•••»nv one. 
 curred h, 
 '■^•" We 
 
 "funda- 
 ^'eii how 
 
 solemn oath, to have none but necessary communication with them. 
 You know what very slight impropriety on the part of even one juror 
 during a trial, will make a verdict worthless. But, you say, the six who 
 " were not guests of the accused, or his advocates" signed the decision. 
 Then, tamper with six of a jury as you will, and provided the whole 
 jury agree upon their verdict, that verdict is good. That is your 
 argument. We must speak plainly in this matter. Can you say for 
 yourself — the impassioned and vigilant advocate of Dr. Pryor, — that 
 those members of the Council who were your guests, were not also 
 the listeners to your denunciations of Granville Street Church, of 
 the course it had pursued, of its unjust and tyrannical acts, its pride, 
 selfwill, selfconceit, its thirst for blood; as well as of your testimony to 
 the good character of the accused, and of your explanations of the 
 evidence brought against him ? Can you affirm that these ministers 
 and brethren heard nothing of the sort, that you maintained the 
 silence of a judge on these matters, while they were in your company ? 
 The " atmosphere'" in which you placed these men, may, we think, be 
 judged from the character of your letter to us. 
 
 [Your reference to our having made Dr. Pryor, " penniless," is in 
 keeping with the expression made by Dr. Pryor in connection with 
 his solemn asseveration of innocence, " that the Churth had brought 
 this trouble upon him," — Avhich latter expression, after Ihe chairman 
 of the meeting had objected to it. was retracted by Dr. Pryor. Why, 
 you yourself voted that he should no longer be our Pastor. You 
 helped to stop his salary. And, besides, who went to the Association, 
 and applied for a Council ? Dr. Pryor. And he was to choose his 
 own judges, and to dictate the number of the same, and we were to 
 pay their expenses !] 
 
 It was for such reasons as these, that we could not feel justified, in 
 accepting the decision as a basis of action. To have thus accepted it, 
 would have been to uphold the plainest violations of the most impor- 
 tant principles of right and justice. The decision itself, depending as 
 it did, for its right interpretation, not upon itself, and itself alone, 
 but upon " utterances," as to whoso meaning you and we, as might be 
 expected, widely differ, was not a safe guide to follow. To think 
 of acting upon the verbal explanations which accompanied the de- 
 cision was out of the question. To those who were present when the 
 decision was read, and who heard the explanations which fell from the 
 
I 
 
 26 ■ 
 
 President, the def>i<5inn ^ H 
 
 "on. .,ct of „„e of „, j, ,,,„., "^'^^^ -!-°" of a Council „„„„■ 
 '» 'lie Gmnville Street On,' , T'"°" """""■' "■« "'i"", »| 
 
 document sl.euM have Ln , e'ej "^ -"".er thing. So in,p„,tan| 
 
 «Pon the wwtten <loe„„,ent, be 1 1 „ " "'"" "°*' "'™' 1 
 
 Weeonid not act u„o„ i., , n,l the ad™ ™. '"" ""= '"""° ''-■-•| 
 
 «omhn,o,l, sineo ti,e latte we e i .hie " r"""f '"""" -^'"•™'--"| 
 
 <i.fforent heare,., and e„„l„ tCitiV,^ "7'""'°°'' ""^"-""j-. 'I 
 
 1*'" apart from the charaete „f t , , ""' «'"'''" I 
 
 --"hout sanctioning 00''^ „ ?'"'""'' "" «'"''" '»' "eeent i 
 
 - eountenanee in the Sp e/oT: "oV''''^ "' "^ ''" ^'""'- «' 
 "■■even „, Courts of Law *^°'''"''' ■"• O" t'hnrel, polit;, ] 
 
 -}rt7^— -te:°77-"°-~g 
 
 Dr. Pryer-s membership, ,0, „„ , "l" ,' ^''" ""* *« subject of 
 ^PO" the eonvietiou p'odul, ' „";t "f "/ "" '=""-"• "" 
 Dr. Pr.or', „„„ eonduet. We nroen -^7 ' '' "'" ''"'''^'«^«. »"'l h 
 » very f„„ ,„, „^„„^^^^^ report of : '■•"; °"° "' "- oouneillorl 
 Councl. We careful,, eons lered thi 1'' "" '""°"' '"'fore the 
 »n uet during the whole cou '„/ 1": f"™,^"" I^''- ^O-'s own 
 f "'" oonclnsion that we could nl L, P™'='""'"'S«' >"d we arrived 
 b"' ".at we could not lo !" 1 "r ""^ ^^'^^ h™ to felloe, ip 
 accordingly p„, „ ,„^ to his c ■'" " ''''''""'■" '^ -"^ber. Z' 
 
 --'at this day see 1, w we Zf"™ ,"i"" '"« Chnrch, „„d 1: 
 "°"''«- ™''''' ''"^^'MJ' I'ave taken any other 
 
 We cannot help remarkiu- i„ ,T,;. 
 yo.. scarcely touch the great^^stn of ""t"' """ "' ^""^ '<■■«- 
 a ,r '"; '' -«»' -''"uge t ,; r"' ";-m,ocence of our 
 ^llurch professed to be unil,l„ , y°"' •'"owing that the 
 
 -ce should not have I'l'rerr'" "" ''"'-- ^"^^'^ 
 &.rly dealing with that evidence I, """"''^ ">« difflcultv. by 
 
 ->■ ".at the unreliahilitv o Tuch 1 "T"'' '° ^'^ '■•"'« ^or vi .0 
 
 B-ter, was apparent, iua-smuclIh^Z"'' """l '""""'• »» "'»• 
 dtflered from those n.ade before the C """"'•""« ''efore the Council 
 
 not take „p the evidence and JZ '^»'»"««- Why did on 
 
 "»' dorived a wrong concL™' ^^^ fu ,'", '""' ^ '"•■" " 
 
 -ffit did not warrant con- 
 
27 
 
 =n^ meaning /«,.^j^ 
 
 '^ge. T„ ,, '^^ ""^"Viction, von miffht have convinced even us of the fact. If there was 
 
 • "'» Our C'l 
 
 '^'^ of a Coi -I ^"'^^''flfc man in Nova Scotia more capable of dealing with that evidence 
 
 '^'' means on • "^'°^ f^ Aan another, you, the Judge Ordinary of the Court for Divorce and 
 
 '' the v/Jr.K„i '»' "'^" Matritnonirtl Causes and Judge in E(iuity, were that man. It was upon 
 
 i 'I'latjQj ijjj^ point that your ability and legal experience should have been 
 
 ® verhaJ 
 er tiling-, 
 
 So 
 
 ^e coiijf? i^°'''^'it expended. But your letter is almost silent upon this particular 
 
 "Iff VAr.K„1 ^^^' 
 
 ' ^^'1. ac And what explanation, let us ask you, was offered before the Council, 
 
 ft Verbal ^^^^iou of the stubborn facts that we placed before them ? In the immorality 
 
 '''Jei'stood rJ'fP '^"''^^'f^'i case, against a mass of testimony seeming to point only to guilt, were 
 '^ guide. 
 
 '^ ««"^^ not . ^' 
 
 Church polity. 
 
 ::;:7«-Pend;n, 
 
 J""s own 
 
 ''^ ^o fej;owshfp 
 ^ '^'^rnbev. ^Ve 
 
 /^/^"'•e^ and ,ve 
 ^^ten any other 
 
 t in 
 
 ^""^ letter 
 "°'^"«e of our 
 
 ^''at tile 
 ^'th irino. 
 ' ^'fficultv, bv 
 
 "^e, as ax,,^ 
 
 f'« Councfl 
 'f '^'^'^n you 
 % dfd vou 
 
 *'"^'ant con- 
 
 >»viuo- 
 ice 
 
 ^^^h'l bj placed Dr. Crawley's declaration that he thought he could " stake his 
 existence " upon the innocence of the accused, and a number of letters 
 from Cambridge, containing testimony to Dr. Pryor's good character 
 while there. Such testimony as this was all that was placed against 
 the evidence of Policeman Christian-, Detective Ilutt, Mr. Baxter, Mrs. 
 Baxter, Mrs. Maxner, Mr. Forbes, ]\Ir. Morton and others, touching 
 both the character of Mrs. McMillan, and the character of Dr. Pryor's 
 visits to her, during a period of three years. And this testimony was 
 given after the Council had recorded their unanimous o|)inion that 
 " testimony to character cannot affect the facts of present conduct." 
 And when you brought Mrs. McMillan from St. John and put her on 
 the witness stand, did you ask her to explain the facts then before the 
 Council, pointing to guilt? No. You having previously, with Dr. 
 Crawley, visited her at her boarding-house, bro\ight her before the 
 Council, and were content that she should be asked but one question. 
 And so thoroughly convinced had you become that she was not a good 
 woman, that you told the Council before that one question was asked, 
 that those who brought her forward would not be responsible either 
 for her character or the truthfulness of her statements. 
 
 Then, how was the charge of fraud met before the Council ? When, 
 in a series of pecuniary transactions extending over nearly four years, 
 and involving an expcmditure of $70,000 to $80,000, Dr. Pryor could 
 produce only one receipt for money pa'd, the answer was, that this 
 loose method of doini; business was the result of i<;norance. AVhen it 
 was shown that he had not paid out by some thousands of dollars as 
 much as his books represented to have been paid, the reply was, this 
 is the result of ignorance. When, with a receipt in full from Miss 
 Vass, and at a time when Dr. Pryor considered her, as he says, to be 
 indebted to him, and when he was the "penniless" man you represent 
 him to be, ho under his own hand authorized the offer of $2,000 to 
 obtain a compromise, and prevent a further investigation of the trans- 
 
28 
 
 action, we were told that he did it ignorantly. This was the natuj 
 the defence, and the Church did not consider it satisfactory. 
 
 With the Tiews the Church held in regard to the evidence, 
 could not rwtore Dr. Pryor to fellowship without retaining ami 
 their nuntber one whom they believed to be entirely unworthJ 
 memberahip. And the Church was not assisted by the Council or' 
 you in kheir endeavor to explain the evidence on the supposition 
 innoc«nce. 
 
 But apart from the evidence in support of the allegations against d1 
 Pryor, there were other reasons which rendered it impossible for thl 
 Church to restore him to fellowship. We refer now to his own con| 
 duct from the 24th of April to the 2kh of September. You canno 
 understand what we mean by Dr. Pryor's conduct during the proceed- 
 ings, " unless it be his expressions of honest indignation against unjust] 
 and oppressive conduct." Let us explain. And here let us do our late 
 Pastor the justice to say, that although it seemed strange that he 
 should have conducted a prayer-meeting on the evening after his 
 arrest without mentioning the fact ot his arrest to any of his brethren, 
 and should not have told of the affair at once to some of his friends 
 and members of the Church, and not even to his own wife, but endea- 
 voured by all moans to hush it up, yet, when the Deacons had sought 
 him out, and he had met with them, he freelv confessed the great 
 impropriety of his conduct. When the matter first came before the 
 Church, (on Friday evening next after his arrest,) Dr. Pryor stated 
 that he had been at Mr. Twiiiing's on the evening he had visited Mrs. 
 McMillan. This Mr. Twining denied before the Council. He 
 stated, also, that Mrs. McMillan had been " very ill " on the day he 
 visited her; that Dr. Sewall had that day attended her; and that 
 it was on account of such illness that he himself was there that 
 night. Dr. Sewall testified that he knew nothing of her being sick, 
 and had not attended her at all while living in that house ; and Mrs. 
 Baxter, living in the same house, testified that Mrs. McMillan was 
 well that day— was at the wash-tub, and out hanging up clothes— 
 and that in the afternoon she was out in the town ; while Dr. Pryor 
 himself says that she was sitting up when he tapped at her window 
 between 11 and 12 o'clock, and that she remained up for two hours 
 afterwards. Could the Church wink at such facts? 
 
 On the Friday evening following his arrest. Committees, as before 
 stated, were appointed to investigate the reports abroad. Seldom we 
 believe, has a Church been found in deeper distress than Granvill« 
 Street Church was on that night. They went to their homes weeping. 
 
a'fi to the « • , 
 ^« entirety '"'''^■ 
 
 ^^'••in^.e that he 
 
 r,;^«"'«.- after h ' 
 
 ^,7 ^^^'« brethren 
 some of h;„ r ■ ' 
 
 '^'^«' but eiifJea 
 beacons har? 
 
 .? ^°""«^'^- He 
 ?"''• '-^^^i that 
 
 f "'■ ^«^-'^4' s/ct, 
 
 ;7>amUlrs 
 ■^'Jian Was 
 ? "P clothes-^ 
 Jie Dr P,. 
 
 , ^^'- ^W'i'iow 
 ^' ^^^o hours 
 
 I 
 
 29 
 
 '«'as before 
 
 ^e'<iooi n-e 
 
 ^ G^ranviiie 
 
 !S 
 
 
 But where did their Pastor go ? On this point, let Mrs. Baxter and Dr. 
 Pryor speak. (We quote now, from the minutes of evidence, taken 
 by Rev. S. March, a member of the Council.) jMrs. Baxter says : — 
 •♦ There was a person let in (to Mrs. McMillan's room) on Friday 
 night, (same Friday night,) could not say who it was, at 20 minutes 
 past twelve o'clock. The door was locked. I was poorly myself. Had 
 on a mustard poultice. At ten minutes i)ast 2, the person went out." 
 Dr. Pryor says : " I left before the meeting broke up, (the meeting of 
 Friday night). I do not remember that I went down to Mrs. 
 McMillan's tliat evening, and stayed with her. I might have done so, 
 and would have thought it nothing remarkable, as she was going 
 away." You will remember how Dr. Pryor was pressed to say dis- 
 tinctly, whether he had been there or not, and he could not say that 
 he had not. What is much worse, he said he would have thought 
 it '* nothing remarkable," if he had been there that night. The excuse 
 this time was not that Mrs. McMillan was ill. " She was going away." 
 When we bear these things in mind, perhaps we should not wonder 
 that Dr. Pryor, did not propose to withdraw from the pulpit, wliile his 
 conduct was under investigation. 
 
 Then in regard to the whole matter of calling a Council, it was to 
 us abundantly evident, and Dr. Pryor's letters to us show it, that 
 while he was professing his anxiety to have a re-investigation of the 
 whole matter, he was interposing obstacles to prevent that re-investi- 
 gation, and it was with the greatest ditHculty that the Council of hve 
 got him to agree to final arrangements. 
 
 But what was his conduct, after the Council had delivered their 
 decision, pronouncing him guilty of "great want of discretion, in the 
 character of his visits to Mrs. McMillan?" Did he meet the Church, 
 and confess the impropriety, acknowledge the fitness of the rebuke ; 
 acknowledge as you have done, that the decision was " just and 
 righteous," and express his sorrow that he had given " great occasion 
 to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme," and declare his resolve to 
 exercise more caution and vigilance in the future ? lie did nothing 
 of the kind. On the contrary, as during the proceedings there were 
 protestation and defiance, so now there were boasting and triumph. 
 The Council's acquittal was trumpeted through the land, and the 
 Council's heavy condemnation was kept in the background. The 
 Council pronounced him guilty of " great want of discretion in the 
 character of his visits to Mrs. McMillan" It was published to the 
 world that the decision was, that Dr. Pryor had shown " great want 
 of discretion in his manner regarding a single case of pastoral visi- 
 
1 1 II 
 
 30 
 
 tatlon." Was tliis such conduct as the Church could overlook, 
 they met to decide the question of restoration or exclusion ? 
 
 But to ask the Church to restore Dr. Pryor to fellowship, when 
 letter of May 31st, denouncing the Church in the most unmoasurl 
 terms, and expressly "requiring" them to "erase his name from tlul 
 books, and that his separation should be final in this world," — to asl 
 us to restore him when that letter was still outstandiuif, was straiiirl 
 indeed. Again, we say, what could we have done but that which wr 
 did do ? 
 
 • We may ask you, in passing, if we had been able to take the decision' 
 of the Council as our guide, how, with that decision in our hands, we 
 could have done other than we did. What does it say ? " That, in 
 the opinion of this Coinicil, Dr. Pryor is not guilty of immorality, as 
 charged in the allegation ; yet it is, at the same time, the opinion of 
 this Council, that Dr. Pryor has shown great want of discretion in the 
 character of his visits to Mrs. McMillan." The evidence is over- 
 whelming that Mrs. Mclilillan was not a good woman. You know the 
 character of Dr. Pryor's visits to this woman ; and one of the witnesses 
 produced by Dr. Pryor gave you some idea of the frequency of these 
 visits, when she told you that for sixteen months he had visited her 
 " once or twice a week." What does " great want of discretion in the 
 character of his visits " (and so many visits) to such a woman mean ? 
 We are at a loss to know how you could expect us, even with nothing 
 in our hands but the decision and Dr. Pryor's letter of May 31st, to 
 restore him to fellowship. ,; ^ . • 
 
 Here we would speak plainly concerning what the Church expected 
 of the Council. When the Council came to Halifax they found Dr. 
 Pryor excluded from the pastorate of Granville Street Church, and 
 suspended as a member. These were the relations in which he stood 
 to the Church and to the denomination, as far as the action of the 
 Church affected him. His standing as a minister the Church had 
 taken away, so far as they regarded him a worthy minister for them. 
 This was done by excluding him from the pastorate, and this you helped 
 to do. Here is your own language: "I agreed to the resolution 
 excluding Dr. Pryor from the pastorate." But this exclusion was in- 
 tensified by the suspension of Dr. Pryor's membership. Now, we ask, 
 what was expected of the Council— ex[)ected by the Church and by 
 the denomination ? As an advisory body, upon whom the eyes of the 
 whole denomination was turned, was it not expected, and reasonably 
 expected, that the Council should give their opinion (after hearing 
 evidence) upon the ministerial relation which they regarded Dr. Pryor 
 
-::fe-^ 
 
 31 
 
 n^iicjortliy of holding in the (lenomination. Do they suy, " we think he 
 )r to fej/o I • ' ^6^'*- ^'''^ ^" ^^ rocogiiized and .sustained as a minister of the gospel, 
 
 " ^''0 til ^^' ^^ ^'<^'i liix to lie every where rejected as such ?" How sad that they were 
 'Use /lis J . ^'^'^'-'■'■'"'roiiileiit — but how pregnant with significance is that silence? Should 
 in this I , '^ t/i<'/rhey not have saiil in uneciuivoeal language, "We think he should or 
 ut,staj|(7:, ' 'f* a.sAihould not be retained as a church member in good standing?" That 
 ^''G hnf fi' '*'^ •^^''a/i^f.Jiey did not declare themselves somewhat after this manner, may 
 *^'iJc/i ,,.^, apj)('ar more wonderful to those outside than to the members of (iran- 
 
 3^e to 
 
 take tb 
 
 ville Street Church, and for this reason : The Church on looking 
 
 6 fiec/sioj) back cannot forget the ordeal through which tli(\v passed, in attempt- 
 
 ■^> Wc ing to do their duty in the fear of God in this matter. Tliey 
 
 "'^'■t, in wonder now that their mistakes were Jiot more numerous and grave 
 
 t'liiQ ti " '0', as than they were, as they were oj)posed at eery step, and in every con- 
 
 ' ^" o/'''Jioi, of 
 
 ^ ^t say? 
 ^ty of 
 
 
 
 JDor 
 
 ^'"'^^^ '-Pecte^l 
 '"y found Dr 
 
 ^l^'^-^K and 
 '^^''' ^^e ,s(oo,| 
 "i<;lon of the 
 ^^nn-ch had 
 '' ^o^- them, 
 you helpofi 
 
 ^■esoiiuio,, 
 '" ^v,i,s i„. 
 ^' vve ask, 
 'i aud bjr 
 
 ^softhe 
 ^^onahly 
 ^^Gaving 
 '• ^'"J'or 
 
 ceivable way, by that powerful opposition, which a master mind is 
 capable of bringing against those whose course is sought to be 
 obstructed. But, instead of haviuj; to contend with only one such 
 mind, the Council were obliged to meet two. Your opposition we 
 •felt ; but tlie Council were obliged to deliberate and decide at the 
 ^reat disadvantage of your opposition, combined with that of Dr. 
 ^Crawley. We say again, that it is not so surprising to us that some 
 of the main features of the duty of the Council were, in this way, kept 
 out of sight. 
 
 Your charge against us for acting too promptly after the delivery 
 of the decision, scarcely requires an answer. The decision was de- 
 livered September 5th. We met on the 11th, and appointed a 
 committee to examine the whole matter, who did not report till the 
 24th, when the vote of exclusion was passed. That, surely, was not 
 precipitant. Your reference to our present Pastor, we think, was 
 uncalled for. We think it was not kind. You know he had but just 
 accepted our call to become our Pastor, and that he could scarcely be 
 expected to know enough about the matter to be able to understand 
 its merits. We say we do think, however hard your feelings against 
 us may be, you might have spared your reference to him. In this 
 connection your own letter, sent to the Pastor and Deacons eiglit days 
 before we met to decide on the continuance or termination of Dr. 
 Pryor's membership, reads very strangely. Here it is : — 
 
 Ifalifax, Monday, Sept. I6th, 1867. 
 
 To THK Pastor and Deacons of Guanville St. Baptist Ciiukcii, 
 Halifax. 
 
 I learned with regret this morning, from Mr. Sclden, that no notice for a 
 Clnircli meeting during tlie present week, had boon <xiven. It is obviously the 
 duty of the Church to act promptly, on the recommendation of the Council, 
 
32 
 
 to reconsider the Vote of susponsion. The injustice of delay to Dr. Pryor and 
 his friends is jtalpalile ; and delay cannot improve, but must deteriorate, the 
 position of the Ciiurch in the matter. 
 
 Jm my opinion, it is the duty and interest of the Church, actin<i in deference 
 to the Council, to rescind th.it vote; and the more nromptly this is done the 
 more ffracefnl the. act will he. If, nnhapj)ily, tlie majority are determined to 
 despise tiie recommendation, it is in then' power to do so, but they have no 
 rif^Iit to keep Dr. Pryor in suspense. It will be unjust, uncharitable, and 
 mnnanly to do so. Dr. Pryor desires to have his position defined. I desire 
 lo be able to define mine — others may be like me in that respect. 
 
 1 hope the ai)pointn»!nt of a committee on Friday last will not be made an 
 excuse for delay. It surely wijuld be a most uncandid and unworthy excuse. 
 
 I request that a meetinj^ of the wliole Church be called to consider the 
 recommendation of tlie Council, on Friday next, — notice to be };ivcn at the 
 Wednesday evening meeting, and personally to such ius are not then present. 
 1 expect to leave town on tlm Circuit on the Friday after, and I deem it 
 important that I should be present. 
 
 I am, yours very obediently, 
 
 J. W. JonNflTOX. 
 
 1 beg to be informed in .season of the decision to call a Church meeting. 
 
 "We will now notice your request : " I have, therefore, to request 
 that you will take my name, as a member of the Granville Street 
 Church, off the Church books, and consider me as no longer connected 
 with you in Church relations." You hold that a member of a Baptist 
 Church has the right and authority to judge the morality of the 
 Church to which he belongs, and to pronounce upon the forfeiture of 
 its claims to be known and recognized as a Baptist Church. We ask 
 you to view the matter in the light of Baptist principles and practices. 
 As the question now stands, the Granville Street Church most 
 solemnly affirm, that in dealing with their late Pastor they sought 
 direction in prayer and the Scriptures of Divine Truth, and they 
 utterly disclaim the motives you impute to them. On the other 
 hand, a member or members of the Church, mostly relatives of 
 Dr. Pryor, and not unlikely to be biassed in his favour on account of 
 such connection, take the ground that the Church have not been guided 
 by the Spirit and word of God, but have pursued a course which, in their 
 opinion, renders the body unworthy the name or honor of a Church of 
 Christ. Now, we ask, has a member of a Baptist Church authority 
 to come to such a conclusion, and to act upon it? We say most 
 emphatically that he has not, at least not until he has referred the 
 subject to another body to which he has pledged himself to submit 
 such a matter before he deals with it himself. By so doing he ignores 
 an arrangement in which he has acquiesced. We refer now to the 
 Association to whose organization and establishment all the Churches 
 composing it, and consequently each member of these Churches have 
 given their consent. Each Church is bound to sustain and respect 
 
38 
 
 r. Pryor and 
 
 ■rioi-ato, the 
 
 in (li;fbreiico 
 I is (lone the 
 fcriniinMl to 
 *'y liavi' no 
 iital)le, and 
 1- I desire 
 
 1)0 made an 
 tliy excuse. 
 niisi(li;r the 
 riven at the 
 icn present, 
 d I deem it 
 
 rSTON. 
 leeting. 
 
 to request 
 lie Street 
 connected 
 a Baptist 
 ty of the 
 •fciture of 
 
 We ask 
 practices, 
 rch most 
 ^v souffht 
 wid they 
 he other 
 atives of 
 icoiint of 
 in guided 
 I, in their 
 !hurch of 
 luthority 
 iay most 
 rred the 
 • submit 
 ! ignores 
 w to the 
 )hurches 
 les have 
 
 respect 
 
 that body, so long as it remains a member of the same, and if each 
 Church is under such obligations, each member is bound in like 
 manner. 
 
 Article 6 of the Central Association provides that " when a Church 
 shall desire admittance into this body, application must be made by 
 letter, and satisfactory evidence furnished of its faith and order ; this 
 being done, and a vote of acceptance taken, the Moderator shall in 
 behalf of the Association, give to one of its messengers present, the 
 right hand of fellowship." Each Church being called upon to 
 "furnish satisfactory evidence of its faith and order," implies that each 
 Church, seeking admission to the Association, concedes to this body 
 the right to inquire into and j)r()nounce upon its faith and order, 
 with reference to obtaining or holding membership in the Association. 
 
 Article 9 says that the Association can "judge for itself, of the 
 propriety of receiving or retaining any Church in its connexion." 
 
 Each Church then consents by the terms of union, to acknowledge 
 the Association as delegated and clothed with power to investigate the 
 state of any Church in its connection, with reference to ascertaining 
 its belief, or the character of its practice. In this arrangement all the 
 members of the several Churches have acquiesced. In this way, every 
 member of the Baptist Churches comprising the Central Association 
 has pledged himself to refer the important matter of unchurching a 
 Church, as far as the expression of the public opinion of the Churches 
 goes, to tlie Association ; and not to undertake it himself as you and 
 other members of Granville Street Church in connection with you 
 have done. 
 
 As Baptists it becomes you and us to look well to the principles 
 involved in the course which you have marked out for yourself. To 
 this end let us examine that phase of the subject carefully. You hold 
 that Granville Street Church is no longer a Church of Christ. la 
 this is implied the startling fact that one member has a right to 
 decide in so great a matter. A single member of a Church; is 
 authorized to pronounce upon the morality or othodoxy of the Clkurch 
 to which he belongs, and calls upon all the Churches of Chitist to 
 accept his decision ! This is exercising the unlimited power of a dfespot. 
 Nothing could be more opposite to the principles and sentiments of a 
 Baptist Church than this. 
 
 Another Church of the Association could not receive a member 
 
 thus rending himself away from his Church because it would, in so 
 
 doing, accept the decision of one person instead of the c^inion of the 
 
 whole Church judged by that person ; it would take the decision of 
 
 3 
 
i 
 
 I 1 ! 
 
 this one person instead of that of the Association to which it had 
 previously pledged itself to refer such matters ; it would break faith 
 with the Association ; and it would condemn a Churcli uidieard and 
 untried, which would be contrary not onlv to the law of God, but also 
 to the law of man. Grant a member the right to pronounce upon the 
 Church to which he belongs, and recjuire another ChurJi to receive 
 him in, and all discipline would be at an end. 
 
 lielieving these views to be in harmony with Scripture, and in 
 accordance with the pra ice of the denomination, we cannot grant the 
 request which you have made. 
 
 We have thus endeavoured calmly antl dispassionately, but plainly, 
 to discuss the most important matters in your letter. Upon one point, 
 however, we have said comparatively little, — that is, in regard to Dr. 
 Pryor's guilt or innocence. That, indeed, depends rather upon the 
 evidence than upon anythin^j we could say. We have written no 
 more on that point tha.i we regarded as necessary under the circum- 
 stances. Your letter "i-ely calls upon us to show our reasons for 
 thinking Dr. Pryor unlit to be a member of the Church, inasmuch as 
 you would have had us to restore him, whether we believed him worthy 
 of membership or not. To our minds the real question is, whether 
 Dr. Pryor is unworthy of membership, or whether he is an injured 
 and innocent man. 
 
 Instead of discussing the question, you go back of it, and labor to 
 show that we had no right, after the decision was given, to consider 
 such a question. You go further back, and occupy a large space in 
 reviewing our proceedings previous to the sitting of the Council. 
 Now, if you accept the decision as "just and righteous," how can you 
 do this ? The Council had all our proceedings before them. They 
 investigated our action fiom the first, to the time at which they sat, 
 and in the whole course of these proceedings there is but one case 
 pointed out in the decision, where the Council seem to think a more 
 prudent course might have been adopted, and in that case absolves us 
 from having acted from " want of affection." If you believed the 
 decision to be a "ju&t and righteous" one, and therefore neither more 
 nor less condemnatory of us than it should have been, how can you 
 animadvert upon our conduct previous to the sitting of the Council at 
 such length ? Why rehearse your allegations, when the judgment, 
 which you say is "just and righteous," virtually proves that such 
 allegations ought never to have been made ? 
 
 On the other hand, in writing to us who did not aqt upon the find- 
 ings of the Council, we would have expected you to drop the considera 
 
35 
 
 lion of onr conduct which had not hecn condemned by the Council, and 
 to deal with tho grand issue of guilt or innocence. If you believed 
 Dr. Pryor to bo an innocent man, why did you not plainly tlerlare 
 your belief in his innocence, and take up the evidence and show that 
 wo had drawn wrong conclusions from it ? 
 
 "We have time to say but a few more words. "We ask you to reflect 
 on the course you have taken, and the letter you have written. Wo 
 would have you remember that you are a relative of Dr. Pryor. 
 During our meetings you were the senior Deacon present, and you 
 thought it improper, being connected with Dr. Pryor as you wero, to 
 occupy the chair. We appreciated your delicacy in that respect. We 
 would ask you if you ought not to recognize tho likelihood of being 
 biassed in his favor ? 
 
 See how the matter stands. You and six other members of a 
 Church, numbering upwards of one hundred and fifty, are of tho 
 opinion that the remaining members have acted so cruelly and unjustly 
 towards their late Pastor, who is a relative or connection of the mpst 
 of you, that you cannot longer hold fellowship with them. On the 
 other hand, these remaining members, professing to be followers of 
 Christ, and between whom and Dr. Pryor there existed up to April 
 last, the most friendly relations, and who gave more constar attend- 
 ance on his ministry than some of you, these have thought him 
 » worthy of a j)hice among them, and acted accordingly. We may be 
 ', ^'!g, but who is the more likely to be wrong ; you, and the .:.ix 
 who sympathize with you, or the remainder of the Church ? You 
 charge us with many bad and unworthy motives. How do you 
 account for the existence of these motives? You cannot deny that 
 up to April last, we treated Dr. Pryor with as much respect as you 
 did. How is it that almost every member of a Church should thus, 
 all at once, cease to be the friends, and become the bitter and 
 determined enemies of one with whom they had long been on terms of 
 religious friendship ? And let us remind you again, that a Council 
 who delivered a judgment which you pronounce "just and righteous," 
 did not so much as hint that we acted from wrong motives, although 
 you and your co-advocates exerted yourselves with consummate ability 
 to show th.at we had done so. 
 
 We would have you read your own letter over again, and see if 
 you have not yourself, committed the one grand mistake, for which 
 you have arraigned us before the bar of public opinion. 
 
 The Church " rejected the Council's decision." That is the crown- 
 
36 
 
 V: ■ 
 
 ing act of our wicked course. But pause, and see if you that say so, 
 have not done the same thing yourself. 
 
 The proceedings of the Church, from the first, up to the sitting of 
 the Council, were fully placed before the Council, and they were 
 asked " whether the action of the Church, relative to Dr. Pryor and 
 the charges against him, was such as should have been taken under 
 all the circumstances, and if not, why not, and what course the Church 
 •bould have adopted ?" What is the decision ? We quote the words. 
 
 "The Council find, that the Church has been accused of precipitancy, in 
 virtually suspending Dr. Fryor, from the exercise of his public duties, on 
 the occurrence of the unhappy incident in Pleasant Street. 
 
 Resolved: 1st. That the Council is of opinion, that in view of the circum-. 
 stances forced upon the Church, and for the consideration of which time 
 could not then be obtained, the Deacons, whatever mistakes they may have 
 committed, in the duties suddenly devolved upon them, ought not to be 
 charged with the want of affection on account of such mistakes ; it neverthe- 
 less might have been Ixjtter, if the Deacons had sought a personal interview 
 with Dr. Pryor, and consulted with him, in reference to the services of the 
 approaching Sabbath. 
 
 The Council further find that the Church is regarded as blameable for 
 having refused to call a Council at an earlier period in the history of this 
 whole case. 
 
 Resolved, Tliat the Council are not able to decide uix)n this jjarticular 
 {(uestion. But in relation to the whole matter of calling a Council in critical 
 cases of a difficult nature, between Pastor and people, that for the interests of 
 .ill parties concerned, an advisory Council will generally be found desirable, 
 and that such a procedure is in harmony with the practice of the Churches in 
 these Provinces." 
 
 This is what the Council say, in answer to the very distinct and 
 pointed question put by the Church. Now, have t/ou shown a dis- 
 position to abide by this answer? Your letter affords the most 
 ihundant testimony that you have not. Tou have rejected the decision 
 of the Council, and that too, after having given your opinion that it wa» 
 "just and righteous." This i^as worse than that which the Church 
 did, for they did not pronounce the judgment, "just and righteous." 
 
 The Council passed upon our conduct, and though you and Dr. 
 Crawley pressed the prosecution against the Church vrith the utmost 
 energy, they have pointed out in their decision but one case in which a 
 more prudent course might, in their opinion, have been adopted, and 
 in that one case, they say the Church " ought not to be charged with 
 the want of affection." 
 
 You aay, the decision was " righteous." Then it must follow that 
 our conduct merited no severer remark than the Council made. You 
 •harge us with harshness and injustice, with doing wrong by not 
 calling a Council sooner, with injustice to Dr. Pryor, breach of faith 
 with you, and want of Christian charity, with want of candor and 
 
 3i 
 
that say so, 
 
 e sitting of 
 
 they were 
 
 Pryor and 
 
 en under 
 
 le Church 
 
 the words. 
 
 pitancy, in 
 ''"tics, on 
 
 'h! circum- 
 liich time 
 '"-•ly have 
 lot to be 
 nevert]io- 
 interviow 
 •-'3 of the 
 
 eable for 
 7 of tin's 
 
 •irtioular 
 > critical 
 ;«rests of 
 t'sirable, 
 rches in 
 
 ict and 
 
 1 a dig- 
 most 
 
 -ciston 
 
 it was 
 
 hurch 
 
 sous." 
 
 a Dr. 
 
 tiuost 
 
 icil a 
 and 
 
 with 
 
 that 
 i'ou 
 not 
 u'th 
 
 37 
 
 truthfuhnss, with partiality and jprejudice, with committing an outrage 
 by reviving the McMillan matter, and with many other serious offen- 
 ces alleged to have been committed before the Council sat. All 
 these charges you pressed against us, before the Council. The 
 Council delivered a " righteous" judgment. They did not condemn 
 us, and yet you come before the world, and hold us up to scorn, for 
 having committed the very offences, for which a " righteous" decision 
 had no rebuke, and when you yourself charge us with not abiding by 
 that decision. In regard to the exclusion from the pulpit, you most 
 plainly " trample upon" the Council's decision. The Council acquitted 
 us from acting from '"■ want ol affection." You condemn. The Council 
 did nof. condemn for not callinjr a Council ^ooner. You condemn for 
 that. The Council did not condemn for reviving the McMillan 
 matter. You condemn for that, (" the act for which you determined 
 to separate from Church relations with us.") And so on. Was the 
 Council's decision "righteous?" Then, what do you think of your 
 own decision ? Unless you admit that a large portion of your letter 
 (that referring to our proceedings prior to the sitting of the Council) 
 is totally out of place, and ought not to have been written, you must 
 condemn the decision. But it is too late for you to do the latter. 
 The decision was " righteous." The simple fact is, (to use your own 
 language,) that you have accepted the decision " as to findings which 
 you approve," but have rejected it "as to findings which you dislike." 
 In one of your allegations you charged the Church with becoming 
 the accusers instead of the defenders of Dr. Pryor. Perhaps we have 
 here the true explanation of your whole course of action, which, 
 although you may have regarded it as right, is yet undoubtedly 
 wrong. You verily thought it was your duty to become Dr. Pryor's 
 defender — to gain his acquittal if possible. In our opinion Church 
 discipline could not be maintained if such a principle were adopted by 
 members. Truth should be the object sought. We pray God to bring 
 you to a better state of mind. We think you have erred in the course 
 you have pursued. We think your conduct has been disorderly, and 
 merits reproof. Do not say it is impossible that the relations of 
 Christian brethren can ever again exist between us. Rely upon it 
 that the members of C -anville Street Church would willingly forgive 
 your offences ; they would rejoice to find you manifesting such a spirit 
 as would remove that which now prevents you from walking with them 
 in peace and harmony. 
 
 By order, and on behalf of the Church, 
 
 B. II. EATON, CUrk. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 "^e append to the foreffoinc^ T ,, , 
 P-ceedings relating to Dr. P^oTtlken '^^"'^^"^-^ ^-^or, of oar 
 
 Mr\S-^ afternoon, t, ^'f^" ^^^ «• ^^^ ^^^KWrrH. 
 
 Street aLut 2 'oV>i^;^f'•^^P'•>•«'•'°ni^^^ ^,'^ ''H^'-"-^ «•"" 
 
 rooms of a Aire. AIcAmit tf^'^ ^»th havini been ll ^^' ^''"'^ ^'^^n ««'zed 
 to consult with B, P ^"- ^^'- S'^Wc" and jfc. r' u * -T^ *^^« hours in the 
 He was not a 'home ttZ fr "^ "'^'^^ ^^-^ be'do^r^J J -mediately wen? 
 ^^! -^tatt^I that he^.",\^:^!:r"*««after,Dr.pLt;'^^ ,.''.^^ 
 
 and statwl th^f i. ' ,,.^-^^ '"'""tes after T)n p » ^ *"^ ^'"'cunistanees 
 called at i)r *? ,t\ r' '"''^"' ^'^ """o^ ^fl^kf ^^^^ ^'-^I'-^^n ^Ir. sK 
 tliat he wished ?n i'^'"''- ^^ he, Dr V^nT *'"" ^''^>'' and had iast 
 
 We met at Br Porl . t*^ '"^'^t "s on the ^«£. • ^'- ^'Tor's house 
 
 the runrors in cSuiatiS. i '"''^'-^'^''^ ^« had en 'to s^.,'r^^"'3« ^''e roo„. he 
 ■Mra. Pryor nf fi.,' • , ^" -Tuesday evenino- /-fi "t, ,?^^^ ^^hieh had been 
 Conuno;;; ;^ as dS^T^? «^ ^"« --inS 1 "^"'^ t^M^"^ '-'^" -S 
 there all 'ni^ht e'hS'V.wf ^^"Serousl.'iK' S "^^^'"' ^'^^■^'"'' ^h« 
 Mr. Charles" Twinin,r's to *,''"'^^ '^hotrt » o t'lo,^a„,r ^''"J^"'^^^' ^" '^^aj' 
 
 t^-re before for s2 dme \ ft"" ^^ '^-''"nl'trlsrV",' "'^"•■"^' '-^^ 
 who was verv ill irwi ^™'' th s he hirJ „,! V"^ had not been 
 
 «hout 10 o?loek, Mr *'"" ""'^ '-"- and Se?"" 5 T'*^ ^'/^^ — 
 
 -- - ' ■ r:.r— T -»e in, and asfc^h ."(Sr pf ' , '^^''-' 
 
 ;» tliem. _ After stavin. " , .^.' ' ^'^ /« ^'"'"e 
 
 
 to read." Jlo ,f,;;:;;'"" "''™'', "»= street t„ l,i, „,;'„ r"-""S -i^'Ut an liour, he 
 eveninjr. Ug „„*,V. . i M ."'^' aiK had nm.i,; i ^ ^"rs. J\li.]Vi,|j.j n the- 
 
 though?irS.Jt r.h'^lt^'r '''-"t n" ovo^"" ^V^"'"" '••''- 
 
 retm-n. On .roimr f *. ^ '^ '" her ro.^m he wo.l, •'/""' ^hou-h so h.te 
 
 and l^ hinl't ""L' w^r' '^*l'" --J- a 'vllj' M "''^v^ V^ "^^ ^u 
 principally on whit l^' '''^^l^^^i ■» eonversat on w , '''• .'^'^"^^^'''an eamo 
 
 f- -'Men dearth ^TiT'^'^ "--^'^ d.e" tf'" '^ ^""^ ^^'"'^ 
 had turne<l on religio,;. subtJ., ''''yi ^l^''"'' BetWe Lavin,V r"'''"'^''''"^' "'> 
 ti'»e but did not think of'-K'i ."' '''"*'' ^•'>''tin„ed Cm; ''''""'"'"'^^'"" 
 foun.l It was later than I, J ''''''"''''■'* "'" the hour n • ■'" *'' «»»«"h'rable 
 stdl. Goin.rintothf /'I '"''''''■'''^'h lAb^ V Xni " ?'"»' *'> leave, he 
 J^ane. Afe? UvMu""' '•' ^'^ '«'''»e po i ^1 "t" '^ fhx-k having s ood 
 
39 
 
 story of oar 
 ^ Uooks : 
 
 th called on 
 wnc'd fi-ou, 
 'n I'leasiiut 
 "cen seized 
 
 |ours in the 
 
 lately Went 
 
 -uuistjinees. 
 
 Mr. SeWei, 
 
 (i liad just 
 left word 
 
 etlier, and 
 
 or's lioiise, 
 
 30 o'clock. 
 
 <^ room he 
 
 'i'rence to 
 liad been 
 
 wen with 
 
 'vond the 
 
 "I to stay 
 
 L'alliny- ,it 
 
 lot been 
 
 When 
 
 to conie 
 hour, h« 
 11 a^rain 
 1 ill the 
 I ill the 
 
 so late 
 
 woiihj 
 ^Jr, btit 
 i came 
 
 while, 
 lily on 
 ■j^ation 
 L^-ahle 
 ■tS he 
 s-tood 
 ''orks 
 : into 
 to be 
 w of 
 u he 
 
 perceived the person he had observed, approaching him. Op coming up, the 
 said person, Mr. James Baxter, seized him by the collar, and charged him 
 with visiting Mrs. McAL'Uan ibr an improper purpose, and staying in her 
 room two horn's, — that he had been watching outside, determined to find out 
 who it was. He had supposed it to be some other pei-son, and stated that 
 Mi-s. ^IcMillan was a woman of bad repute. He (Baxter) then called Jamea 
 McDonald, policeman, who w;us also near, to come and take him (Dr. P.) in 
 chargt". lie used most violent language towards Dr. Tryor. Dr. P. entreated 
 McDonald to save him from Baxter. McDonald refused to take him (Dr. P.) 
 in charge. Dr. Pryor told them that Mi-s. McMillan had been sick and had 
 a doctor attending her. On being (questioned as to the name of the medical 
 man, Dr. P. stated that it was Dr. Sewall. He (Dr. P.) had visited Mrs. 
 McMillan as one of his congregation. He admitted the imjjropriety of being 
 there so late, but entreatcil them, Baxter and McDonald, to say nothing 
 about it, as it would be injurious to Ins character, and would break 
 Mrs. Pryor's heart. Baxter, however, jjerijisteJ tor some time in abusing 
 him, and threatened to give informatian at the police ollici^ in the morning. 
 J)r. Pryor promised to see him again in the morning. He went to his house 
 early in the morning, and again besought him to say nothing of the matter, 
 which Baxter partially promised, but on meeting him atlerwards he found it 
 had been spoken of It had got abroad in the city and it was too late to stop 
 the I'eport. 
 
 AVe then asked Dr. Pryor why he had not gone to some of hi.s friends and 
 spoken to them of the affair — two days had ])assed since it hail taken place, 
 and nothing had been known to us until after it had been made the common 
 talk of the city. He replied that he had hoped that it would not have been 
 necessary — that it woulil not have sjiread abroad, l>ut would have been hu-shed. 
 
 He (Dr. P.) was greatly agitated, and asked us hf)w coulil he get it made 
 known to Mrs. Pryor. We rej)lied that in that matter it w;is impo.s>'ible that 
 we could aid or advise him. It w:is a charge of such a nature that none but 
 hiui't^lf could spe.ik to her about it. 
 
 Some time was spent in considering what could be done. As the rumore 
 were :dl over the citv, in everyl)0(ly's mouth, we agrc(!d to call a meeting of 
 the male membi'rs of the Church on tiie following evening, when the state- 
 ments v/e had just listened to, might be made to tiiem, and any exaggerated 
 and false rumors might be corrected. The meml)ers of the Church were 
 accordingly sunnnoned, and met to the number of about thirty, at 8 o'clock, 
 on the evening of Friday. .Judge Johnston, being the senior Deacon present, 
 was recpiested to take the chair, but declined. Intimating that it would be 
 improper for him under the circumstances to do so, whereupon he re<piested 
 Mr. St'iden to take tlii' cliair. 
 
 The foregoing is to tiie best of our knowledge and recolh'ction a correct 
 statement of the facts connected with the case of Itev. Dr. Pryor and Mi"s. 
 McM.llan, from the date mentioned at the connnencement thereof, to the time 
 
 of the first nu'etinj: of the Church. 
 
 Aufjust Ut, 18C; 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 Stki'Hkn Skldkn', 
 I). McN. Paukkk, 
 
 li. N. BlXKVVlTU. 
 
 MINUTES OF CIIUKCII MKKTINGS, KTC. 
 
 April if>th, 1807. 
 
 At a meeting of the male membei-s of the Church called this evening, for 
 the purpose of considering certain charges made against the moral (diaracter 
 of our pastor, Rev. Dr. Pryor. Bro. Splden in the chair, — after listening to 
 observations from llev. Dr. Pryor and various brethren, embodying the 
 
Ill: 
 
 40 
 
 
 «f Bros. Selden Ro. t 9?'""»"eo of five bre Cf f P'^n^t.'ons of ti.e same 
 il-soresolo.l, That a Cn...... . ' '" ""'"^'^"-^^^ -^"^'^^ 
 
 ' AU,\soloed, That a P • " "' """"' "'"'' '''''"''*'' ""'^"«'^'fe''^t«'«u"g 
 
 After the close of tl" • '""^''''^ '"' "''*^'>- 
 
 ^- l^or on X sVbSt'';;' T'^"^.^'^^'^ beacon' silierTo''^^''"'''^ P--^'-'' «" 
 
 pulpit. '"'y^^t' and to invite Rev. D M V u """ '^'^ '^'*'' 
 
 ^ext mornin. the fol Win,, note was fo / '" ""'^^' '" 
 
 {, "ote was forwarded to Dr. Pryor •- 
 
 Yours very truly, ^'^"'■" 
 
 ^mr 7i/- — Wj t REPLY. - -w.ukn. 
 
 «7 Brethren thought me guilty? ^ """»' custom. Will 
 
 Yours truly, 
 The next meetin. held in r J«»^v Puvor. 
 
 *'*• T''^ ni'nutes are as follows L '^ ^"^P'' «" the 
 
 fa«-^S:tSrf /'f ^^^''-" of the^Jlf "?' "^ ^^'^' ^««7. 
 S!« ^^^r : S ^'r ^[^o^S^Si^^XS^ ^'- P-rpose of 
 *»eMen m the ehair. ^''^''acter of uur p;«tor, R^y^ ^"'•*="» ^"''arges 
 
 ^. The minutes of the nrov-;. • ^'■^'"■' ^-^''^^^on 
 
 ■K '^'Ts' :::'■' r--" -- -"• -• *^ a .,„. „,,.,. 
 
 Clum-l,, „.„, „»«;,*"""• "■'"•* had been pr„,,„„,, , . 
 
 If'fcrM., On ,1,0 2s,^ , "> "'"Deacons of the 
 
 itports,— the said Com- 
 
41 
 
 oftJiesanie, 
 '"' consistinrr 
 ^'sti<rat(. such 
 
 ''"•^'t's inadc 
 *''"^'<?<in ami 
 ^''i- as oarJy 
 
 P''wieh on 
 nif.iie with 
 occupy the 
 
 horning, 
 
 "•en came 
 '«' riirht to 
 ■efore, ^(i 
 
 ^'^DEX. 
 
 consent 
 »• Will 
 
 'VOK. 
 
 on tho 
 on the 
 
 «7, 
 
 'ose of 
 
 'iar<^es 
 
 '■aeon 
 
 'tcra- 
 
 bove, 
 fions 
 ■ the 
 
 ' the 
 
 the 
 
 tor, 
 
 his 
 
 3n- 
 
 tee 
 
 Kl, 
 
 mittee having presented their report, consisting of the statements made to 
 them by the several parties who were examined — 
 
 Be it therefore resolved, That tlie Church are unwilling to believe, and have 
 no positive proof of criminality in the cases mentioned in the evidence given. 
 The Church are, however, compelletl to express their conviction that Dr. 
 Pryor's indiscretion has been so great, as appears by the evidence, and by ]ii.s 
 own statements, that we regard it jvh having destroyed all hope of his future 
 u.sefulness as a pastor in connection with this Church. 
 
 liesoloed, That the Clerk send a copy of this resolution to Dr. Pryor; and 
 also apprize him that the Conunittee, on matters connected with Miss Vass' 
 accounts, would hold their report over till this night week, the 1 7th inst. 
 
 The report of that Committee was then laid on the table to lie over. 
 
 On motion, the meeting wiis adjourned to Friday evening next, 17th inst. 
 
 The following statement, explanatory of the manner in which tlieir inves- 
 tigations were conducted, has been furnished by the Chairman of the 
 Committee : — 
 
 The Committee sought to elicit the truth. With this olyect they traced 
 rumors and reports to their sources. The authors were solicited to make a 
 statement of what they knew, and the Committee received the same. Dr. 
 Pryor was not present when the Committee received statements. It did not 
 occur to the Committee that Dr. Prycir would wish, while the city was excited 
 with the scandal, to accompany the Conunittee in their visits from place to 
 place, day after day; nor did the Committee receive any intimation of such a 
 desire on the part of Dr. Pryor until several days after their appointment. 
 On the contrary, Dr. Pryor said in the presence of two memoers of the 
 Committee on Saturday, the day succeeding their appointment, — " For my 
 part, 1 do not see what thi^re is for your Conunittee to do. A few silly 
 rumors sire afloat, but I ujeet everybody on the street just as I ever did. I 
 know no difTerence." On May 6th, liowever. Dr. Pryor enquired if the 
 Committee wished him to meet with them at Mrs. Maxner's. In reply, he 
 was Informed that the Committee had no wish in the matter, but If he desired 
 to be i)resent, the Conmiittee, no doubt, would be pleased to have him. lie 
 stated that if the Conmiittee wanted hliu, he would be at the office of Board 
 of Commissioners of Schools. F'our membei-s of Committee called at Mrs. 
 Maxner's, that P. M., having arranged to notify Dr. Pryor to come over if he 
 wished to, but Mrs. Maxner being absent from home no meeting was held at 
 that time. Two of the Conmiittee, however, saw her in the evening and took 
 her statement. After Dr. Pryor's statements had been reduced to writing 
 before the Committee, the statements of all persons received b^- the Committee 
 were re.ad over consecutively to Dr. Pryor ; and he Avas informe<l by the 
 Committee that If any of the statements contained in what had been read 
 were false, the Committee would arrange that Dr. Pryor should immediately 
 see any of the persons who hiul maile statements. Dr. Pryor declined to 
 meet any of saul j)ersons, remarking that, doubtless, the Committet! had 
 already formed their opinions for their report from the statements made, and 
 notiiing he could now do woulil have the elTect of altering them. Dr. Pryor 
 was Immedlafely informed that the Committee did not intend to express any 
 opinion in the matter, but simjily to present the statements which tliey had 
 received as their report. Dr. Pryor ^ dl declined to meet any of them. The 
 Committee having closed their iin ^ligations, met with the Deacons at 
 Deacon Nutting's, where the entire evidence was read to the Deacons in 
 Dr. Pryor's j)resenco. 
 
 Julij ZUt, 18G7. S. Ski.pkN. 
 

 42 
 
 Cluircl, ,„^.„„,j ,„,"«»■'«■ movod, ,uul lire ■;,'■,., '" a"'™,lme„t to iv 
 
 
 
 1 p« 
 
 tilE 
 
 pn 
 coi 
 
 agi 
 mil 
 
 ani 
 bei 
 re J 
 
 IIM 
 
 of 
 ex 
 
 sai 
 ph 
 
 of 
 
 till 
 a] 
 till 
 
 
 fol 
 
 ai 
 
^% 17M, 1867. 
 
 t'ie words "i^tirj 
 ,•;'' ''"'«";,''• a loner 
 
 '"''-'»' meat to tC 
 ;«eo,Kled, tiKtt the 
 
 '"^' ^or ,t ,1,,,, ^ 
 "- '-,"''"Jnth;e to 
 
 '^«ftJ.eChurcI,, 
 r^'port until thf,s 
 
 2-^'''', 18G7. 
 
 '"'•';''• Deacon 
 
 "i-otAJi,, y.^^^. 
 
 "'twa« moved 
 >^ P-'^'^^ed, that 
 
 insiderofi item 
 ««•; addresses 
 1 the present 
 
 '^i, 1867. 
 
 .f''-'^''-- The 
 ^ O'or rtiad a 
 ■'^''- tc, the 
 'd ai)l)t'nded 
 'ceived and 
 s contained 
 ^ theCom- 
 tne sum of 
 *• ^^'\>'"»*, as 
 c "(3<hieted 
 Inilund, in 
 
 ♦'I'^S thus 
 ean & Co. 
 18C7. 
 
 ur. 
 
 8G7. 
 
 The 
 
 iyor 
 
 Coin- 
 
 43 
 
 iittee's report, which he requested to be added to the former written statc- 
 liient given bv him, as his answer to the said matters. 
 
 It was resolved that the additional statement be received. 
 
 It was also resolved that the Church is now ready to proceed to deal with 
 ^his matter without iurther iuvestiyation of the accounts connected therewith. 
 [It was then moved by Bro. Vaux, seconded by Bro. Tapper, That — 
 
 Adjourned to next evening. 
 
 )r. I> 
 
 JC 
 
 I Wednesday Eveniiiff, May 20lh, 18G7. 
 
 I Adjourned Church meeting. Deacon Selden in tiie chair. Minutes of the 
 I previous meeting were read and approved. Bro. Vaux rose and said, that, 
 5 as tlie resolution moved by him on the previous evening w;is prepared 
 ; hurriedly, and did not perfectly carry out his views, he would beg to move 
 ; the following resolution ;is a suljstitute ; Bro. Tapper assenting thereto : 
 
 J ]Vherea.'i, On the 27th day of April, the bretliren in meeting assembled, in 
 f presence of Bev. Dr. Pryor, who assented thereto, did appoint a Committee, 
 I consisting of brethren E. G. W. (ireenwood, (ieorge traser and Horatio 
 ' Vaux, for the purpose of investigating certain charges made by Miss Vass 
 against Dr. Pryor, and also tiie difficulty existing between Bro. John McVean 
 and Miss Vivss, and Dr. Pryor as her agent. 
 
 And Whereas, The said Conunittee, after receiving a list of said charges, 
 and the btK)ks and papers furnished by Dr. Pryor containing the accounts 
 between Miss Vass and Dr. Prvor, and assented to bv tiiem severallv as 
 representing said accounts correctly, have given said books and papers a 
 most patient, careful and searching examination, and atler ])lacing the results 
 of their investigations before Dr. Pryor, fiiiled to obtain from him satisfactory 
 explanations of the apparent defalcations, have reported to this Church the 
 said ciiarges an<l the bases on which they rest, as exhibited by the documents 
 placed In their hands by Dr. Pryor- 
 
 A nd Whereas, The Church having heard from Dr. Pryor his cxi)laiiation 
 of said accounts and incorrect entries ; and having learned that subsccpient to 
 the pref)aration of the Committee's report. Dr. Pryor urgently sought to make; 
 a pecuniary compromise with Miss Vass, which fact has a serious bearing on 
 the correctness of the statements given in Dr. Pryor's rlefence. 
 
 And Whereas, Dr. Pryor has expressed his entire satisfaction with the 
 manncT In which the Committee had conducted their Investigation of his 
 accounts, iis well as with the time all«)we(l him by the (.'liurcli to prepare his 
 defence, read at two consecutive meetings and appended to the Committee's 
 report. 
 
 Be it therefore resolved, That the Church do not consider the explanations 
 given satisfactory, as accounting for the overcharges and inaccuracies in the 
 accounts submitted ; and that whilst we are unwilling to believe tiiat Dr. 
 Pryor had any intention of fraud, and would still hope that further light may 
 lie thrown upon the matter, they feel that several of the facts elicited are of 
 so grave a character, and, apparently confirmatory of tlie ciiarges made, that 
 tliey demand from us the fulfilment of a most painful duty — that of susjiending 
 fellowship with Dr. Pryor until such time as he shall afford satisfactory 
 explanation to ihe Church. 
 
 Deacon Johnston then moved, and Bro. J. W. Johnston, jr., seconded, the 
 following resolution in amendment to the foregoing : — 
 
 Whereas, Certain charges have been brought to the notice of this Church, 
 by Miss Ann Vass, against the Rev. Dr. Pryor, in matters of business accounts 
 between them. 
 
 And Whereas, A Committee were sent out to investigate said charges, 
 and have reported that they have found inaccuracies in said accounts. 
 
 And Whereas, Dr. Pryor, in his explanatory statements, has admitted that 
 
u 
 
 some of the <!aifl inn • 
 
 'ar«ea,„„,„:i --'"■^-.. «id account, Vn.:ti„S],::!:;:'r^ 
 
 Ami JVAereas It >" several am 
 
 ^ After i'^iSn , "™« ^° "'*» ^i^J- ' "" "" ""' ™"*'«' 
 
 Auursaay evening, 
 
 pr^^ts'^tL^'"":'' »'-«"S. Bo^r'snlf"""'""' ''"" """' ■«"• 
 * """s meetinfr roti^ a„,i ■^'-ncon oelden in Mm «u • 
 
 '"«'vasp„ta„d1<ir'''"''"n>-°-''- Tl-o ameni* ,° , S at 7'" "' 
 wnnccte,! ;i,h Mii'T ', "»■'"« concluded i,s ;„ ' , ! '.'° '^''°"-'' 
 
 & 
 
 S:!f!:. J'^,.^'-rch having 'loZ:^^- '""^^^ ^'^ Ci„n:^h :- ^""^ 
 
 -•etargef a,ainsuh Rev" Dfr^" • '^^ ^'^ ^-^.s 
 ''^-Praged ,n the solemn 1,;m.,- ?'"'''"» ''^'^tion to 
 
 connected with Miss Sol- ° -:-">^- .is uive 
 
 niatters of business is on '^'"'"'ife'^^ '-^S'-^inst the Rev Dr P, •- -- --' 
 
 should scStlS 1m ''S-'^'iiiiatiou, it i, ^.i i", T"" >"? '"'ail,-, a, ,1 ?„' S, 
 
 passed, that the oriVi„S^fresnh..^'''T' -'^"^^ ^^^'onded by Bro T? .• 
 
 clause: "And J,.>,t;, '"*'°" l^^^ amended bv .f -r- ^o^^'nson, and 
 
 m'se >vithMiss Va, wh^7"'-"''ff«»tl7 nought to make •> r^"'''"" "^ *''« 
 
 tJ'e statements give 'in d''V^^'* >^ * .seriL beariV o7m'""''''^' ^'•^"'P'*«- 
 
 Tiie original ?eIo „ L- ^> '^ ^'«fi^nce." ""- ^" ''^« correctness oi 
 
 ^ It was m^ved b B Ir^ "> """'"' *''^" P^^^^^' 
 
 S;^'^ »^^- Br?::;:!;?;«S^-, and passed, that the 
 
 Chureh. ^^« -ports of the t/o C^rtle^; tSii^;'?^^'-^ 
 
 The meeting then adjourned. "^ '" '^'"^ 
 
 -Note t* 
 
 member ' of t'hT f-K ^'^ ?''/'^° J-csolutions, afTeof ino- n t, 
 
 hin,. n.msclf entirely mnooent of the cha4e^ T,"" 'H* ^'^'e, 
 
 cfta.ges preferred against 
 
 
'•>' '"■'»!, but (.Jaf,.. 
 
 ""^appropriate he 
 
 '"ade ini.stak..s-:l 
 
 in several 
 
 riiscif 
 
 ani 
 
 45 
 
 FnV% Evening, May 31s/, 1867, 
 Monthly Church meeting. 
 The following letter was read, but no action taken thereon : — 
 
 AND MkMUKKHI ok THE GrANVILLE St. BaI'TI8T 
 
 be, 
 
 I 
 
 . ^^anit' extensive ^^ 
 
 I 
 
 THE Deacons 
 CuuucH. 
 
 have received 
 
 a copy of a resolution, passed at a 
 
 meeting 
 
 not consider 
 •hursday evening, 
 
 '.'/ 30M, 1867. 
 
 ^*''-; Minutes . 
 "^«'l at last meet 
 
 0/ 
 
 of male 
 
 expensive ■i^nemhei's of the Church last night, by which I am suspended from the fellow- 
 
 ayments to a laro-, ship of the Church until such time as I shall afford satisfiictory explanations 
 
 '". ^ ^ere ke[)t, that ^"^ ^''" Church. The eflect ot this mode ot dealing with me is at once cruel 
 
 Jorthe per2)I,;xii)„ and insulting. 
 
 Those who have pa.ssed that resolution cannot but know that this reference 
 'Oor to have been ^' *'*' ^''''th^^r cxj)lanations, is, from the nature of the circumstances, no better 
 ^ve do not cnnc,;.i„. than a mockery so far as I am concerned ; how far it comports with candor 
 and manliness on their part, this is not the time, nor the occasion to iiupiire. 
 In this crally and most insidious resolution not one word is said, nor even a 
 hint given, that the over-charges were as many against myself as against 
 Miss Viu«s — not one word to let it be known that tiie Committee themselves, 
 on further investigation, had requested to be allowed to alter their report, so 
 as to show that even in one single account — ^that of Mr. MeVean — an error 
 had been discovered of more than S800 ; that instead of my mistake being 
 upwards of ^lOOO, it was but little over S200; that on the very last day of 
 my ai)])earing betbre the Church an error was discovered of more than S;7(), 
 which I had made against myself, thus carefully and wilfully excluding every 
 (extenuating circumstance, while putting in the strongest light, everything 
 that could l)c con>trued against me. 
 
 The individuals who passeil that resolution must also know that, after the 
 treatment I have received from them, I never coidd, under any circumstances, 
 desire to renew a communion with them which they have thus harshly broken, 
 or again place myself in the hands of men who, in the exercise of the great 
 power which a Baptist Church jrossesses, have shown how little they appreciate 
 those gospel jjrinciples which were designed to regulate and conti'ol that 
 power. Under such circumstances to retain me still a member of the Church 
 in name and subject to its power, while condemned as unworthy of its privi- 
 leges, is a refinement of cruelty and wrong. I must, therefore, require that 
 in conunon justice to me, ni} name be erased from your books as a member, 
 and that the separation between us be final in this world ; it is my great 
 consolation that, in the next world, those who have voted for the resolution 
 passed last night will not be my judges. 
 May 3lst, 1867. John Pkyor. 
 
 [The statements respecting accounts in the above letter are incorrect.] 
 
 Monday, June 3rd, 1867, 
 
 Adjourned Church meeting. Deacon Selden in the chair. 
 
 Moved by Bro. Rand, seconded by Bro. King, ajid Resolved, That the 
 Vass Conuuittec be requested to prepare a review of Dr. Pryor's defence in 
 connection with his accounts with Miss Vass, 
 
 The Nova Scotia Central Baptist Association met at Canning, as appears 
 by their minutes, on the eighth day of June, 1867, and adjourned on Tuesday 
 the eleventh of June. The delegates did not return till Thursday, June 13. 
 
 On the 14th or l.'jth of June the following letter was received by the Clerk 
 of the Church: — 
 
 June Uth, 1867. 
 
 Deau Sir, — I beg leave to call your attention to a resolution of the Central 
 Association, in which it is recommended that a mutual council be called to 
 
 ',;•' ^"jconded, the 
 "c Ohurch : . 
 
 ;;■«". of the" flicts 
 :"'"» relation to 
 bther or not the 
 
 ^fr»ud Miss Vass' 
 
 , V' »"fl to this '■% 
 
 ''*f ti'o Church ^ 
 
 3 aenomination, :i 
 
 >ction with the f 
 
 « «f this ^st I 
 
 •'.."fK 
 
 ;^| 
 ^t'lg, was lost, m 
 
 ^binson, and 1 
 the following 
 ration of the 
 "ary conipro- 
 'orrectness oi 
 
 '^fi; that thvi 
 
 /'Jinisterinff 
 'tted to the 
 
 pastor and 
 the Bible, 
 ^^ against 
 

 46 
 
 J;ike into oonsKlenf;,.„ », , 
 
 B,„.,VTo.v Eato», E,„ J,. „ ■>'°''n, truly 
 
 . The next „e«i^^f "■■*'• «»rA 
 
 CI,,,,-,.,, „«ji„„ ,_ """""'-•W -ml. I)r. IVvor, 
 
 'Ni€;.r.i'ri''«".'™.iB«.:i<,,.,-.i, ,,,,,, , .; """««''f>-'«.oo«„g 
 
 Tl-«lw;^-',:tr,"'«'".priv,.te,e,«,-„„„„s , , *•' ""'""■»" 
 
 nw-r'""- .'«'•«' '™C:i';:.'-J - " "■""■^•V »"""«», at 4 „.o,c..t 
 
 respect \vJW,a ^il'' <^onrl„ctl„„ of if, P"''''''""*"g to Hm ;. ^ """'^^''' '"^"'i 
 CJi,i,v.| •"-^' ^''ey ontcrfil? ? ^ P^oceedinrrs" v.4 • "^«''«sts of this 
 
 Ctomh ■y''''":""" "f"-" Council ,„ l , "'' '" '^«"-™M 
 
 Cot ■r.'fF'-t'^^^^^^^^^^ : °"'' "-""^ ^^•''^- r.or „„. .„ 
 
 iassed unani- 
 
"'c action of tl,c 
 ""•'-•'i to take n...:"^ 
 
 action 
 
 •To I 
 
 V< 
 
 '' '^""« I7tl,, tho 
 
 ^^'ith Dr. Pi 
 
 rvor, 
 
 ' "^ 'a-st meeting 
 
 ;y''ft occurred at 
 
 :"'' "• '•««Tencc 
 
 '"'"g resolution 
 
 on, at 4 o'clock. 
 
 ;^''-'^'^t Church, 
 ^'•yor and tho 
 ^^'•- ^Vor and 
 
 '"ff resolution ; 
 <' ;it Ciinninjr, 
 '" '•«eo,n«K-nTl 
 ">' cJiosen by 
 e been n.ado 
 '-'.'» resolution 
 
 independent 
 consider and 
 ■rests of this 
 ,«* t/'e hicrh 
 
 r'"t-h tllis 
 ea capacity, 
 
 "le reconi- 
 Council to 
 -^ryor and 
 '■ tueility in 
 a thorough 
 
 > meet in 
 a« ineli^r,-. 
 ■yor to bo 
 
 5 char;ye8 
 been or 
 'r in tlw 
 eterenoe 
 
 and the 
 
 bat the 
 unani- 
 
 47 
 
 It was moved })y Deacon Parker, and sccondtd bv liw. .\ckluirst, that a 
 [nieetin<i ottlie Church, to dioose tlie proposed Council, be held on Tlnuxlay 
 evening next, unless it be inconvenient ibr Dr. I'ryor to attend on that 
 levelling. Passed uiiiiniuiously. 
 
 A letter from Dr. Pryor, relative to the apj)ointnietit of the Council, was 
 read. 
 
 Adjourned till Thui-sday, June 20. 
 
 I'lic fii-st and sccoikI resolutions in the foregoinj^ minutes were forwarded 
 to Dr. Pryor, June 18th, witli the Ibllowing note : — 
 
 Halifax, June. 18//i, 18(57. 
 
 KkverenI) Sill, — I enclose two resolutions pjussed by the (iranville Street 
 Church last evening, and am rcipiested to inlbnn you that the Church will 
 meet with you on Thursday evening, the '2<ttli inst., at ~^ P. M., in the vi'Stry, 
 to clioose th«! proposed Council, if it will be convenient ibr you to attend at 
 that time. 
 
 lMea.se inform me before to-morrow evening, whether it will Ix- conveni»'nt 
 for you to be jn-escnt on Thui-sday evening, and if not, then on what (fvening 
 next week you could attend. 
 
 Yours respectfuUv, 
 
 Hev. Dn. PiiYOK. \\. II. Eaton, Clerk. 
 
 REl'L Y. 
 
 Dkau Siu, — In reply to your note, handed me yesterday, I beg leave to 
 say it will not be cf)nvenient for me to meet the Church to-morrow evening, 
 but I shall be happy to <lo so on Thiu'sday evening, the "iSth June. 
 
 I must also beg to state to the Church, that, as the proposed Coimcil is not 
 an ex parte one, but to be mutually chosen, it does not become me to dictate 
 to the Church who shall or who shall not be its members, nor of how many it 
 shall consist; nor does it fall within the power of the Church thus to dictate 
 to me. And it does not become either the Church or me to dictate to the 
 Council what shall be their basis of considc-ation ; for as independent and 
 disinterested men, they will of (;oin*se act in accordance with their own 
 judgment, without dictation from either of us. 
 
 While I may have no objection to the details, (that, however, I shall leave 
 for our consideration at the meeting to be held 'riiuisday, '2Htli,) I do, uj)on 
 principle, object to any dictation, either to myself or the Council, on the part 
 the Church. 
 
 No action of the Church is to bind them previously to our mutually agree- 
 ing upon preliminaries on Thursday ever.ing. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 John Puyok. 
 
 BrenTon Eaton, Esq., Clerh Gr. St. Church. , 
 
 Jime 27 th', 1867. 
 
 Dr. Pryor met with the Church to choose the proposed Council. I'cacon 
 Seldcu In the chair. Minutes of l:ust meeting read and adopted. Dr. Pryor's 
 letter read. On Dr. Pryor's objecting to the clause in the ba-sis of Council 
 passed at last meeting, relative to the class of jiersons to be chosen, it was 
 moved by Bro. Rand, and s«!conded by Bro. Robinson, that the following 
 words be substituted for that clause, — " No person to be chosen who has 
 either, in the knowledge of Dr. Pr^or or the Church. j)ublicly expressed his 
 opinion in reg.ard to Dr. Pryor's guilt or innocence." Laid on the table for 
 future action, at request of Dr. Pryor, to give him time for the consideration 
 thereof. 
 
48 
 
 IMI 
 
 I'll 
 
 Tlio fl)llow!n" rcsnlntlon was then moved by Deacon Parker, sccontltnl by 
 l)i'a('()M Beckwitli, and passed: — 
 
 Whereas, Dr. IVyor ol)je(;ts to the Couneil being composed of three \ 
 ministers and two laymen, or of four ministers and tliree hiymen. 
 
 Thercfiire resolved, Tliat the matter be compromised by choosing five 
 ministei-s and two laymen. 
 
 Dr. I'ryor argued agaiiiHt the fn-st division of clause two of the ba.iis of 
 Council, but con.sented that it should stand. 
 
 Then adjourned. 
 
 The next meeting Wivs held on the day named by Dr. Pryor. The niinutca 
 lire JUS follows : — 
 
 Jnhj Ath, 1867. 
 
 Adjourned Church meeting. Deacon Selden in the chair. Minutes of 
 last meeting amended and adopted. The Chairman j)Ut the following (pies- 
 tion to Dr. Pryor, — " At a regularly called Church meeting, what number of 
 persons would Dr. Pryor regard as competent to act on behalf of the Church, 
 and whose action he would consider entitled to respect?" To which Dr. 
 Pryor replied in substance, that any number of members presi-nt, at a 
 regularly called Church meeting, was competent to transact business on 
 behalf of the Church, but that the respect to which tlii'ir action would bc 
 entitled would depend largely ujjon their number. 
 
 On motion by liro. Rand, seconded ])y Deacon Beckwith, it wa.s resolved 
 that business be taken up at the point to which the Church had arrived at 
 the previous meeting. 
 
 Dr. Pryor stated that he could not consent to the resolution i)roposeil by 
 Bro. Rand at the last meeting. This resolution was then with(Irawn. Tlie 
 following resolut'on was moved by Deacon Johnston, and seconded by Bro. 
 Payzant : — 
 
 llesoleed, With the consent of the Rev. Dr. Pryor, that the Council 
 recommended by the CtMitral Association, in relation to the charges against 
 the Rev. Dr. IVyor and the matters growing thereout of, do consist of six 
 ministers and two laymen, half of eaeli to be chosen by the Church and half 
 by Dr. Pryor; and that the Council have power, in its discretion, to choose a 
 ninth member. Further, that the Council be left to pursue its inquiries and 
 deliberations, af\er having heard such suggestions as the Church or Dr. Pryor • 
 may see fit to offer, according to its own sense of duty and propriety unfettered 
 by directions or restraints injposed either by the Church or Dr. Pryor; and 
 any resolutions passed by the Church inconsistent with the foregoing resolu- 
 tion, are now rescimled. 
 
 It was then moved in amendment by Bro. Rand, and seconded by Deacon 
 Beckwith, and passed, that that clause in the basis of Council passed by the 
 Church on the 17tli ult., relating to the class of persons to be chosen, be 
 rescinded, and that the following clause be substituted therefor, — " Nomina- 
 tions by Dr. Pryor shall be subject to the approval of the Church, and 
 nominations by the Church shall be subject to Dr. Pryor's approval. 
 
 Then adjourned. 
 
 ' ■ Juhj 12th, 1867. 
 
 Church meeting. Deacon Selden in the chair. Mmutes of last meeting 
 read and adopted. 
 
 Bro. Fraser submitted the report of the Vass Committee relative to Dr. 
 PryorV defence. Report adopted. 
 
 The following resolution was moved by Bro. Rand, and seconded by Deacon 
 Beckwith, and passed :— 
 
 Whereas, The Nova Scotia Central Baptist Association, at its recent 
 sitting, recommended this Church to " invite a Council, to be mutually chosen 
 
 I 
 
Parlcor, snoon.Jcl hy 
 composod of three 
 
 ■'IVIIICII. 
 
 ^ ^y ''Jioo.siiifr five 
 f^^o of the basis of 
 
 7«»*- Tlio iniinitca 
 
 '<'/ ilh, 1HG7. 
 
 ■''•i'"':- Minutes of 
 f'"' follou'in^r ,j„es, 
 
 ^ ;vl,.u ni„nl,or of 
 ;-;^Ifof the Church, 
 io whi'ch Dr. 
 '■" I'ri'scnt, at a 
 I'^act hii.shu.s.s on 
 action Would be 
 
 '' 't was resolved 
 » had arrived at 
 
 '?>} proposed by 
 •'thdrawn. The 
 econd(,d by Bro. 
 
 'at the Council 
 char-rcs a^,.^;nj,j 
 
 ^o consist of six 
 -'i"i-ch and half 
 'o»' to .-hoose a 
 ■»; inquiries and 
 'h or Dr. Pryor • 
 •letyiintettered 
 '^■^ryor; and 
 regojngresolu- 
 
 «J V Deacon 
 passed by tJie 
 'e chosen, be 
 ''r-" Noinina- 
 <-hurch, and 
 val. 
 
 '', 1867. 
 la^t meeting 
 
 ative to Dr. 
 
 ' by Deacon 
 
 its recent 
 'ally chosen 
 
 by Dr. Prvor and the Chnreh, to cnnsider the cliar^ies that have been made 
 a^'ainst Dr. Pryor and the ai-tion of tlie Chnreh tlicn-on." 
 
 .Iml W'/iercds, 'I'his Clmnli, with :i sincere ilesire to carry out, in a 
 ])riiilent and impartial miinncr, tlie above recommendation, met on the 
 ITtli .rime lust, and nnaninioiisly parsed the t!)llowin<j; resolutions iind basis of 
 Cniincil. MJiniely : — 
 
 1. ]\' /ii'ri'fis. The Ccntrid Hiiptist Association, latr-ly assembled at Cannin<r, 
 piisscd tlic iMlDwin;.' rcsuliilioii. ii;irni'ly : — " Tii;it this Assdciiilioii I'econimcnd 
 the (iriinvillc .Sirrct Clinreh to invite a Coinicil, to be mutually chosen by 
 Dr. Pryor iiml the Chiu'cli. to consitler the ehar>;-es that have been nuide 
 ajj:ainst Dr. I'ryor and the action of the Ciiiirch tlicreoii." which rcsolntion 
 has now been laid bcliire this nii'i-tin;^- ; and altli(Mi;ili as an independent 
 CluM'ch of Christ they are possessed of full and .ample powt-r to considei" and 
 adJMilicate upon all matters whatever iiertainin,!^ to the interests ot' tliin 
 Chiu'ch or to the condnctinjr of its proceedinj.^, yet in view of the hijrh respect 
 wliieli they enlerlain fur the ( 'etilral Association, of which this Chinch is a 
 mcnd)er, and tor its opinitJii and acts in its as>'(ieiaied cajmcity — 
 
 liii it tlierefore resolve//, That this Church cni'dially ajiprove of the rc<'om- 
 meu'latiiiu of the Nova .Scotia Central iJaptlst .Vssociatinn. to invite a Coinicil 
 •') consider the charjres th.at have been made a;j^ainst the Rev. Dr. i*ryor, and 
 the action of the Church thereon; and shall be <.rlad to aiford every facility in 
 Its p((\ver to su<'h Council, to enable them to <five the whole nuittera thorough 
 investigation. 
 
 IJAvSIS OF COUNCIL. 
 
 (1) The Council to consist ot — ministers and — laymen, to meet in 
 Ilalitax, tiie relatives and connections ot' Dr. Pi-yor to bt; re^iai'ded as ineligi- 
 ble; such [)ei'sons only as are believi.-d by the Church and by Dr. Pry(jr to 
 be un|)reiudiee(I. to be chosen. 
 
 (•J) Tiie -uiiject.s lor investigation and adjudication Ui !«■ (I) The charges 
 of iinmorality, and all testiuKaiy having reference thereto, which luus been or 
 may hereafter be adduced; (2) the charges of a pecuniary character in the 
 accounts witii ^liss Vass : and (;)) the action taken by tie- Cluireh in reli-r- 
 enci' to each of the above cases. 
 
 {:>) Tiie expenses of the Council to be buriu; e(pially by Dr. Pryor and 
 the Church. 
 
 :l. Ji'ittolrctl, That the Council be composed of three ministers and two 
 laymen. 
 
 And itlierenx. At a meeting of tlie Churcli on the 27th June, at Avhich Dr. 
 Pryor was present, the fnregcinu,- basis wa-< di'^cussed clause by clause, and 
 Dv. Pryor most strongly objecting to the first clause, the titllowing clause Mas 
 nu)viMl an<l seconded as a substitute tiierefor, viz. : — " No jM-rson to be chosen 
 who has either, in the knowledge of Dr. Pryor or the Church, publicly 
 expressed iiis opinion in I'cgai'd to Dr. J'ryor's guilt or innocence," wliii-h 
 proposed clause was laid on the table at Dr. Pryor's recjuest, in order that he 
 mi'iht further consider the sanu; ; and the second and third clnnsis of tlu! 
 basis were then agreed to by Dr. Pryor, and the number of Councillors 
 niulnally lixed at live ministers and two lay la-ethren. 
 
 And n'hrraCs, The Church met with Dr. Pryor on the 4th of July, and (m 
 learning from him that he did not consent to tlie proposed substitution for the 
 first clause of the basis, the same was withdraw ,i Mid the fi)llowin;^ resolution 
 Avas adopted, viz.: — "That the clause In the i;..-Is of ('oiincil, jiasseij by tho 
 Church on the 17th nit., relating to the class of pei-sona who should not be 
 chosen, be rescinded, and that the following clause be substituted, viz. : — 
 ' Nominations by \^\•. Pryor shall be snlijeel to the npprov.al u\' the Church, 
 and nominations by the Church shall be subject to Dr. Pryor's ai)proval.' " 
 
il 
 
 50 
 
 And wliereax, Dr. Pryor at once said that ho could not agree to said clauRC, 
 and tlie niectinr; adjourned without lurther action. 
 
 Therefore resolved, 1. That the Clerk do communicate to the Moderator 
 and Secretary of the Association this failure to carry out the wishes of the 
 Association. 
 
 2. Tliat the Ciuirch, considerin<i; it impossible to carry into olFect the 
 recommendation of the Association in its integrity, on account of the denian 1 
 of the Rev. Dr. I'ryor, that he should be allowed to appoint a portion of '.he 
 Council froui amonjj his relatives and connections, (a denianil tliev deem, 
 witliout precedent, unjust and improper,) and being anxious to effectuate thv. 
 wishes of the Association a** far as possible, and t(i secure an impartial and 
 thorou<j:h investigation of the charges broutiht ajfainst Dr. Prvor, and the 
 action of the Cliurch tliereon, do invite a Council of tlu'ce ministt'rs and two 
 lay brethren to investigate tlie subjects specified in clause two of tlie basi.s 
 hereinbefore mentioned, and to re|)ort to the Church their o{)iiiion in wiiat 
 degree any and wiiii^h of the diarges alleged against Dr. Pi-yor liave l)eeu 
 established before them, and whether the action of tlie Church relative thereto, 
 and to Dr. Pryor, was such as should have been taken under all the cii-cum- 
 stances; and if not, why not, and what coiu-se the Church should have atlo]iti'd ; 
 and that tlie Rev. Dr. Pryor be notified of the convening of said Council, and 
 invited to present his case before them, and be afforded the fullest opportunity 
 to defend himself a-jainst all charixes that mav come before said Council. 
 
 It was then resolved that Rev. Dr. Spurden, Rev. Charles Randall, and 
 Rev. John Davis be invited to act as Councillors; the Rev. Dr. Tupper and 
 liev. John Siiaw to be invited in case one or more of the first invitations 
 slioidd not be accepted. 
 
 It was also resdved that Thomas Pattillo and T. S. Harding, Esqi-s., be 
 invited to act as Councillors ; William Faulkner and Safuuel Freeman, jr., 
 to be invited in case of the non-acceptance of the invitation by one or more 
 of the first named. 
 
 Tlie following resolution was then passed : — 
 
 Whereas, It is important that this Church have an authentic and connected 
 «tat(Mnent of all facts relative to the late ditliculties with the Risv Dr. Pryor 
 in the ovder of their development. 
 
 Therefore resolred, That Deacon Seldeu, brethren Rand. Fraser, ami the 
 Clerk, be a Committee to prejiare such a statement, and report the same to 
 the Church a.s early an convenient. 
 
 Tiien adjourned. 
 
 The resolution of July I'ith, respecting the Council, w;i„s forwarded soon 
 after its passage to Rt^v. Dr. Spurden, Rev. Charles Randall, Rev. John 
 Davis, ami Thomas R. Pattillo and T. S. Harding, Esqrs., with the following 
 rJircular : — 
 
 Halifax, Jnhj Uth, IHtJT. 
 
 Dk.\u Sir, — I am directed to enclose yen a copy of a resolution jiasscd by 
 the (Jranville Street Haptist Church la,>*t evening, and to inform you that it 
 w;is also resolved at that meeting that youivelt", (the names of tiie other four 
 were here inserted) be invited to form the proixised Council. 1 have, tiiere- 
 fore, now, on behalf of the Church, to invite you to become one of the 
 members of this Council. The i)lace of meeting will be Halifax, and the 
 first day of August en^nling has been named as the day for convening the 
 Council. The Church will j)rovidc suitable accommodation for you while 
 here, and licpiidate all expenses incurred by you in coming and returning. 
 
 Will you be good enough to inform me, as soon aflcr the receipt of thlj* 
 
36 to said claiifio, 
 
 :» tlie Moderator 
 i« wishes of tlie 
 
 into effivit tlicr 
 oftli(> (leiiianl 
 I portion of the 
 ii'l tlicv d'joni. 
 ) efK'ctiiatc; th(; 
 ^iinpartiul and 
 Vvor, and the 
 listers and tvvf) 
 ';» of tlie b.isis 
 "iiion in wliat 
 >'ov have been 
 ■lative thereto, 
 ill the eirciini- 
 'lavejulopted; 
 C'ouncil, and 
 t oj)portMnity 
 (.'oiMicil. 
 liandall, and 
 
 «t invitations 
 
 r; Ks(ji-s., be 
 ['Veenian, jr., 
 one or nioro 
 
 11 <-onnected 
 V Dr. Vi-yor 
 
 cr, and the 
 tlie same to 
 
 irdod soon 
 lii'v. John 
 (3 followinir 
 
 1807. 
 
 Jiassi'd by 
 ► on that ft 
 other fi)ur 
 VP, thero- 
 ne of the 
 
 and the 
 'nin<r tlie 
 ■ori while 
 rniniif. 
 [Jt of this* 
 
 51 
 
 note as practicable, of your pleasure in this matter, and whether (if it be 
 convenient for you to come) your engaijjenients will permit you to be here on 
 the 1st August, and if not, how soon after that date it would be convenient 
 for }ou to attend. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Bkkxton' II. Eaton, 
 
 Clerk Granville St. Church. 
 
 Tho forcgoinjj invitation was accepted by all except T. S. Harding, Esq., 
 whose engagements would prevent his attending. Willlaui Faulkner, Estp, 
 was then invited to form one of the Council, and the invitation was accepted 
 by him. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Davis' engagements stood in the way of his attending on the 
 first d;iy of August, and the eiglith d.iy of August was then named, and notice 
 of the change of day forwarded to each person invited. 
 
 A copy of ihe resolution, passed July r2th, was forwarded to Dr. Pryor 
 soon afler its date ; and as soon as it could be done, he was informed what 
 persons had accepted invitations to form a Council, and when they would 
 meet. 
 
 The following communication was received on the 22nd day of July : — 
 
 To THE Granvillk Stuket Baptist CiniRcu. 
 
 I hav(! received a copy of a series of resolutions, passed at a meeting held 
 on Friday evening, 12tli July. In i-eply. I beg leave to make (he following 
 remarks, — 1. You must be aware (hat 1 have l)een most anxious to have the 
 Council which the Ci'utral Association recommendtid. As it was refused me 
 previously to the meeting of the Association, I carried my case Ijefore the 
 Association, aud It was thfough my earnest retpiest tluit the C'ouncil whh 
 recouunended. 
 
 2. On my return from the Association, having waited some time to see if 
 any action Avould l)e laken by the Church, and having lieard nothing from 
 you on the subject, I took the liberty of calling your attention to the reeom- 
 mendiitum of the Association, and urging upon you some action in relerence 
 to it. Instead of a mutual action with me you took it uj)on youi-selves, 
 without my ])resen.ie or consent, to lay down " liases of Action." which were 
 ^•alculated to hamper and obstruct the formation and action of the C<mncil. 
 
 ;f. After vou had consented to deliberate ftloui;: with nu- vou refused to 
 come to any agreement, except on such conditions n.s would necessarily cut 
 ofi'froin the Council some of tlie fible,'«t of our ministers. 
 
 '1. Jn the resolution passed at the meeting of the I'ith July, you have 
 asserted that which you must have known was not the truth. You therein 
 Jiav that a "demand was made by l>r. I'ryor that he should be allowed to 
 appoint a portion of the Coum-il from among his relatives and connections." 
 No such demand, as you well know, was made by me. My action was simply 
 a refusal to consent to a restriction upon the choice of mcmliers of the Council, 
 which would cut oil" from the Council a minister of the gospel, wluise ability 
 aud rcjtutatlon made him most eligilile, because he hajipened to be connected 
 with me — a connection so distant, that it couM not hav(^ rendered him 
 incapable of seeing and adjudging in the case according to the evidence. 
 
 5. You have now taken u|)on yourselves the serious step of calling, ujion 
 your own responsibility, an ex parlr Council. And though I have refused to 
 agree to restrictions on a (!ouni:il to be "mutually chosen," Iji'cause you had 
 no right to impose such restrictions, yet you have presumed to invite me to 
 
52 
 
 If^ 
 
 present my case before this Council, in the ?elcetion of wliich I have not had 
 the ^liffhtest choice. Ol" course I will not jilaee niyscH' in coinn>union with a 
 Council, in the apjHjintnu'ut of which I have had no voice ; which Council, 
 however iMiitahle and excellent as to the inilividuals who may conij)ose it, is 
 in direct oppositio!) to tlie advice oi' the Association. And I (inuly believe 
 that had the Church shi>wn any ilispo:-ition to depart from the restrictions 
 Avhich the;i, and not /, had jjlaced upon the choice, there wouhl have bt'cn no 
 (lidiculty in seleciin;; a C'ouncil which wouhl have been n\utually a^rcfable. 
 ,As the case now stands, I hold myself at liberty to take siicii course as I deem 
 best suited to the establishment of that innocence wiiich I have all along 
 never ceased to assert. 
 
 Julji 17l/i, 18(i7. John rnvoi:. 
 
 I wish it distinctly to be undei-stood that I had not tlie sliu-htest idea or 
 intt'utiou of namiui!; any relative (n* coiniectiim <;f mine on the Council except 
 Dr. Crawley; and my wisii to have Dr. Crawley upon it was not because he 
 wa.s a connection, but because of his standin;i; in the denomination and com- 
 munity lit l;ir!j;e. and from his le;j;al traininir and Ioult experieiu-i', 1 believed 
 him to be the most suitable ])erson to lill such an ollice. 
 
 JonX PUYOH. 
 
 On the 2()th day of July, the followin<^ letter was received : — 
 
 To TIIK GUAN'VII.LK StKEKT B.Vl'TJ.ST CllUKClI. 
 
 Halifax, iotJi Juh/, ISCT. 
 
 It beini^ evident tome, if not to the Church themselves, from their whole 
 proceediuu's. nlmost from tlie very beLxiuniii:: dt' their iiHpiiries into the reports 
 deroi^atory to my character, that they have not i)ecn influenced by any sincere 
 desire to establish my innocence, if it could be riphtly done; l>ut rather to 
 n\aki' tlieir lirst stej) in the case, viz., their suspendiu<j; me fronv my pastoral 
 duties ot' till' S;Uib;ith, to apjiear a righteous act, tlion;:;!! in ainiiiiii tlms to 
 do, they nuist condemn me, riiihtly or Avron<;ly ; and tlie matter beinti' now, 
 by tiiem, narrowed (Uiwn into an absolute personal iiostility to myself, and all 
 overtures of mine IxMHiX rejected, and all propositions made by nu' bein;^ 
 refused by the Church, nothiiiij; now is left nu' to do, if I wouM have a 
 Council, than to onsent to the Church's own terms, and to yield to their 
 exnctions. 
 
 Tliou^h I do still continue to ])rotest a<j:alnst the riixht of the Church, 
 er parte sua, to dictate to me or to a Council, iiy the fo called " IJasis," iiirmed 
 by the Church, at a ineetinij: of which I was not intiirmed; thouiih, assuredly, 
 1 was the party the most deeply concerned in the proceedin;is and results of 
 the Council — a body, atIucIi whs to have fiir its iiupiiry my reputation, dearer 
 to nu^ than my life; still bein;^ now, as I have been from tlic first, most 
 desirous that a Council, such as the ,\ss<K'iation recommends, should be called, 
 I am forced by the action of the Church to waive my objections to the 
 " Ha>is." and to submit to the dictation of the Church. My position leaves 
 me no alternative in the matter, and under pressure [ am com[)elled to yield 
 up my just rijxhts to y,nr demands, in order that an ex parte action may be 
 avoided, and n mutual Council chosen. 
 
 I make, theref'ore, this concession to you, (hat such a Council as you pro- 
 ])os(^ in your " H;isis" bi- fornu-d ; only stijmlatinj; that the number com]iosinj;- 
 the Council be enlar;jfed. Koiir ministers and two lav brethren tn be chosi-ii 
 by the C!hnrch, and the same numlier by myself: :ill relatives of mine, ami of 
 any meinlier of tliiit portion of (lie Cliiireh who li;is taken pait in these 
 proceedin<;s heretofore conilncted by \i>u, to be excluded. 
 
 This will Ibrm a Coimcil of twelve, by no ujcanH too large n number when 
 
53 
 
 'i^iVc I10( llil,I 
 
 iiiiinloii Avifli a 
 vliicli C'oun(.-iI, 
 
 <'0)11]K)M' it, i.s 
 
 'ii'iiiiy l)clifve 
 
 'h- irstrictioiiH 
 
 li.iv(! Invii no 
 
 'y ;i;ii-c(';il,Io. 
 
 ii>i' iis I (Ic-m 
 
 ivi' all ill 
 
 'v I'jtvoi:. 
 
 't-'sf idea or 
 iiiicil t'xccpt 
 "f l»Ofaiisc! Jie 
 "'II and coiu- 
 '<", J l)('h\'V(.(I 
 
 Ollg 
 
 Vf 1867. 
 
 OtllO IVpOl-trt 
 
 •' ;iiiy siucoru 
 Hit j'atlier to 
 '"y l>;isr<)ral 
 
 " lmni>: now, 
 •>cl(; and all 
 y 'IK' hc'in"- 
 >'''I have a 
 i-'ld to their 
 
 ';' riunvh, 
 '''f*."i()nnc'(l 
 ( a.s,«i«v(lly, 
 '} resiilfs of 
 '711, di-ai-ei' 
 ^ii'^^t, most 
 ■ hv ealled, 
 >ns to the 
 ion leaves 
 'd tr) yiclj 
 
 II may be 
 
 ' yoii j)i'o- 
 oni|tosinii- 
 Ik' ehosfii 
 '<', and of 
 ill these 
 
 "'1' >vlieii 
 
 the. interests at stake and tlie eonse(|uences resultinc; from tlieir aetion arc 
 considered. By this concession I shall J)e coiniM'lled to <<;ive up the benefits, 
 as well to tlie Chin-ch as to mvself, wliich woidd have resniti'il fr mi the 
 niatnred wisdoiii. lonij t'X|)ei'ien<'e and iiijrh standinii; in flie diMioniin;iti(ei of 
 the Uev. Dr. Crawley, who wiis ///r' onlf/ one of mil relalhH'g, if relative he 
 could l)e called, whom I hail the intention of nominatiiiLr lor the Council. I 
 should be glad of an early answer to this connnunication. 
 
 Joiix ri!V()!:. 
 
 [NoTi:. — The following letters also pas.sed between' Dr. I,Vyor and the Clerk 
 of the Chnrch : — 
 
 Ila/i/dx. .fit';/ 27, 18(!7. 
 Hkv. Siu, — Your coiunjunicatlon of the 25th iu-^t., relative to a Council, 
 Sic, was received yesterday afternoon, and I shall lay it before the Church at 
 the first o))])ortunity. 
 
 I am. Sir. vonrs trulv. 
 Uev. Dit. ruYoi:. * " 15. II. Kvton, C/ni: 
 
 Julji 2!). 
 In accordance with the resolution I handi'il yon a few (hxys ago, I have now 
 to state to yon that the proposed Council will be convened in Ilaliiax, on 
 Tliui-sday, August JSth. I will notii'y you ot'tlie iiour and plice ofmee'ing as 
 soon as I can do so. The Council will consist of llev. I)r. Spur leu, llev. 
 Charles llandall, Rev. John J)avls, T. R. Pattillo, Esq., and Wm. Faulkner, 
 Esq. Toui-s, &c., 
 
 B. 11. E. 
 
 Hal! Air, Jul;/ -I'Mli, J Si, 7. 
 BuKNTON 11. Eat(^x, Esq., — 
 
 Dkau Siu, — I have just received a note from you. I should be glad to be 
 informed whetlier it is a y^nra/f connnunication or whetlier it is .sent ro me by 
 the direction and order of the Church. 
 
 J can scarcely eoneeive it can be ihim the Church after I had staled that 
 I would "not ])lace myself in coinmuniou witli a Council, in the ajipointment 
 of whicii I had no voice," and which " is in direct oj»[)Osition to the advice of 
 the .Association." 
 
 Please intijrm me distinctly wliether your note is by onler or resolution of 
 the Church, and at what time the Church meeting was held at which the 
 resolution was 'passed ; and whetlier my comnumication res])ecting its ex 
 [Hiiit Council was submitted to any legularly called meeting of the (Church. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 flouN I'liYoi;. 
 
 One part of your note is dated 27th .Jaly, anutlier part 2!ilh. 
 
 Iliilifiix .Ju!;i ISO, lMi7. 
 
 I*!'.v. Sill, — \\\ reply I0 your note of yi'sterday jii-^t receiveil. allow me to 
 sav that my note, of which you spcdc, was not sent by sjiecial direiMion or 
 order of the Church, but was conceived liy me lo I)e rendcicd ncces-ary Ly 
 the resolution |)revious!y hapdc 1 you, which riMjuired tliatyon be notified of 
 the convening of (he CouiK'il 1 '^'as unable, till thru, to state (he time at 
 which those eom[)rIsing the Cftuncil coi.M asseml>ie. Your communication 
 respecting an I'.t p<ir!('. Council has not yet been siilimitted to any nu'ctingof 
 the Church, but a meeting was announced on Lord's day li)r Wednesday 
 evening, at which 1 will sulunit it. 
 
 I am. sir, voars tridv, 
 
 Ij. 11. Eaton.] 
 
54 
 
 'I 
 
 If 1 
 
 'liiiii 
 
 It 
 
 Th( Church held a raeotinix, Julv 31, to oonsicler the matters connocted 
 
 with Dr. J'i-}or, the minutes whereof, so far i\s they relate to those uiattei-s, 
 
 are as follows : — 
 
 July 31s/, 1807. 
 
 Church mcotinj^. Deacon Sclden in the chair. Minutes of previous meet- 
 iu<z approvi'd. 
 
 Letters were read from Rcvds. Dr. S[»urden, Charles llandall and John 
 Davis, and T. S. llardiuj;, Thomas II. I'attillo and William Faulkner, Iv-ip-s. 
 Also two letters from Dr. Pryor, dated r'specttively July 17th and •2.')t!i, 1S{!7. 
 On motion of Deacon I'arker, secondt^l by Bro. Ackhurst, it wii>{ reso/reif that 
 the tbliowinii letter Ixj sent to Dr. Pryor in answer to his communication of 
 the ^.Oth July :— 
 
 Halifax, August 1st, ISfw. 
 
 Rkv. Siu, — lam <lirected to say, in reply to your connnunication of the 
 2.5th nit., that the lateness of its receipt and the character of its lanjj;ua;j;e (a.s 
 well as tliat of the 17t!i ult.,) both preclude t!ie Church from giving any 
 furtlicr consideration to tlu; jjroposals contained in it. 
 
 I am, Sir, yours trulv, 
 
 B. il. E.\Tox, 
 Rkv. Dr. PiiYOU. Clerk Granville St. Church. 
 
 It Iran resolred that a copy of the following letter be sent to each member 
 of the Council : — 
 
 Halifax, Julii 3Ls-/, 18G7. 
 
 To TIIK nUKTUUEN COMI'OSING THK CoUNCIL AHOUT TO ISK CO.NVMCNKD 
 1\ II.VI.II AX, AT TIIK UKCiUEST OK TIIK GuANVILI.K St. BaTTIST 
 ClIUUCII. 
 
 The unha[)py circumstances which have given origin to the Council, of 
 wiiicii you are members, and tlu^ measures taken thereon by the Churcli, have 
 resulted in a want of harmony ii\ feeling and action between our late pastor, 
 the Rev. .)r. J'ryor, and a largt; majority of tin; Church. Such being the 
 case, the brethren composing tiiat majority, from feelings of delicacy, have 
 thouglit it advisable tliat the domestic hospitalities, whieli they otherwise, as 
 a matter of course, would have e.\tended to your Council, should be waived 
 pending the investigation. They have al-^o deemed it prudent that in any 
 interviews other than those of nn ollicial character which may take ])lace 
 between members of the Council anil themselves, the subjects uniU'r investi- 
 gation should not be discussed. 
 
 In thus acting they .are only desirous that they m:iy be free fi'om even the. 
 susjiicion of havii\g. in private conversation, attempted to impres< the minds 
 and influence the decision of the i»retln-cn composing the Council. I am 
 conse(iuently directed to state that tlie lodgings ))rovided will be madt- known 
 to yon, cm yoin- arrival in the city, at the residence of Bro. Seldcn, (Jraiiville 
 Street. * B. II. Eatox, Clerk. 
 
 Moved by T)eacon Parker, seconded by Bro. King, and I'esolrcd, Tliat the. 
 two ('ommittees appointed on the '2()lh April last, relative to charges against 
 Dr. Pryor, be appointed to represent the ('hurch before the Council relative 
 to the first two subjects foi- their consiilcration. 
 
 Moved by Hro. King, seconded liy Bro. Maud, and resolfed, That Deacon 
 Parker, Bro. Robinson, and the Ch'rk, be appointed to represent the Church 
 relative to the third sul>ject to be discussed beti)re the (Council. 
 
 Adjourned. 
 
 The lettei's contained in the above minutes were duly forwarded to the 
 I'cspective parties to whom they are addressed. 
 
55 
 
 coniinctod 
 '« iii;ittei-s, 
 
 lH(i7. 
 iuiis moet- 
 
 "'ni'l John 
 
 '■■'•. Ksqi-s. 
 •"''Il, 1N()7. 
 
 •^'•■?'/ tliat 
 K-iition of 
 
 Sf;7. 
 
 iHi of the 
 ■u;i.;e (as 
 viii^- any 
 
 Church. 
 iiu'iiibor 
 8Gr. 
 
 "iH-il, of 
 'cli, Jiave 
 L5 pastor, 
 
 '.V, liave 
 
 ■\vist', as 
 
 ^yai\ed 
 
 in any 
 
 <' |)i:u'c 
 iiivusti- 
 
 ■<'n tli(^ 
 iiiind.s 
 ' am 
 known 
 invillo 
 rrk. 
 
 rainst 
 lalive 
 
 'aeon 
 luivh 
 
 Augmt 5th, 18G7. 
 
 Tlio following resolution was moved by Bro. Rand, seconded by Bro. King, 
 and parsed : — 
 
 Whereas, The Chr.rcli has been informed that the Rev. Dr. Pryor stated 
 publicly, at the Central Association, that he had n-peatedly urgod this Church 
 to call a Council, and that the Church had refused him the same, (which 
 statcMucnt was re-iterated by the Rev. Dr. Crawley). 
 
 A)hI whereas, The Church has been informed that its delegates, Deacons 
 S. Selden and R. N. Beckwith, made reply that such statement wj^ untrue — 
 that Dr. Pryor had not asked the Church for a Council, and that the Church 
 did not refuse to grant a Council to consider nil the (.-hargi's against Dr. Pryor. 
 
 Tlierefore reM)lreil, That this Church adirnis that the only occasion on 
 which a proj)osal for a Council was made to a meeting of the Ciiurch, was at 
 the last meeting (held May 30th.) called to pass uj)on the charges arising out 
 of Dr. Pry(jr's transactions with j\Iiss Vass, when Deacon Johnston moved an 
 amendment to the resolution then pending, to the elfect that the matter l)e 
 referred by the Church to a Council, and such resolution having been seconded, 
 certain members of the Church stated that they would support said amend- 
 ment provided the mover would consent to include also the chargi; in relaticm 
 to ]\Irs. McMillan, as the two cases, in their judgnu-nt, were very closely 
 related to each other, too much so to be considered entirely apart ; and as 
 also the course which had been pursued by tiie Church, in relation t(j the 
 charges in the case of JMi-s. ]MciMilIan, lunl been chnraeterized as arbitrary, 
 vindictivi', uncharitable, unjust and unchristian, but Deacon .Johnston refused 
 to include botli cases in his amendment, stating that one case had been 
 already disposed of, and shouhl not be again discussed, — whereupon his 
 anu'ndment was negatived. 
 
 And whereas. It has come to the knowledge of this Church that the asser- 
 tion, that a Council was retused by it, was tbunded upon an interview had 
 between the Dt-acons and Dr. Pryor at the house of Deacon Nutting. 
 
 'Therefore resolreil. That the l)eacons be retpiested to f\n"nish to the Clerk 
 of the Church a written statement of overtures made, if any. to them at said 
 meeting by Dr. Pryor, for a Coimcil ; and that the Clerk file such statements 
 with the documents of this Church. 
 
 Jlesoh-ed further, Tiuit this Ciun-ch afllrms tliat at its nu'eting (INfay 10) 
 ne.xt H)llowing the meeting above referred to, at wliieli Dr. JVyor was present 
 the greater jjortion of the evening, and which was convened siiecially to pass 
 finally upon the charge against Dr. Pryor in relation to Mrs. ilcMillan, no 
 proposal was made bv Dr. Pryor, the Deacons, or other uumuImt of the Church, 
 lor a Council to advise upon the charge then under consideration. 
 
 i the 
 
 STATEMENTS FUUN1SIIE1> IN' (X>MPLI.VNL'E AVITII THE AIK)VE 
 
 KESOLUTION. 
 
 On Wednesday, May 8th, 18G7, tkere was a meeting of the Deacons of the 
 (iranville Street Church with the two Connnitti's appointed to investigate tlio 
 charges against Dr. Pryor, at the residence of Deacon Nutting, at which 
 meeting Dr. Pryor was ])reseiit. 
 
 AfttT the two Committees had read their reports and retired, the Deacons 
 and Dr. Pryor wmained to consult as to future proceedings. In the coui-se of 
 conversation, to the best of my rccollectiim, Deacon Johnston suggested a 
 Council for tlie considerati' of" tlie matters contained in the cliarges. Dr. 
 Pryor was asked if siKih a procedure would meet with his concurrence, and 
 replied that it would ; and that he would leave the matter, or woidd like, to 
 act in the matter as the brethren thought best. 
 
 During the consultation the names of some of t'.ie brethren, who it was 
 
56 
 
 tlioii<:f1it would make jiidioious inemljei-s of tho contcmplatod Council, wore 
 sum rested, and their {jualilieations disewssed. We left lA'.acun Nutting's with 
 the uuderetanding tliat a Couneil would be, called, or rather that tlie oflice- 
 bearei-s wouhl reeDUuneiid such a course to ihe Church tor its adoi)ti(jn. 
 
 The next nioruiug I called at the olliee oi Deacon St^lden, and ascertained 
 from him that such a reeonnnendati(ni would not meet with the apjmjval of a 
 number (jf the members, and that an unanimous vote could not, therelbre, be 
 obtained if a resolution to that ellect were laid before the Church. 
 
 Deacon Seldeu, with a view to obtain entire harmony of action, (which, u]) 
 to tliis period, had characterized the meetings of the Churcli,) had commenced 
 the f)rej)aratiou of a preamble and resolution having relation ordy to the case 
 of ]\Irs. i\I<']\Iillau, in the maturing of which he was subse<iuently assisted by 
 Deacon Nutting; and on the evening of that day a numl)er of brethren were 
 informally asked to meet in the small vestry to hear and consider it. The 
 subject-matter of the docunjent was discussed freely and at length, ami those 
 brethren then present agreed to use their endeavors to have it carrit'd without 
 division. As Judge J(jhnston was not j»resent on the occasion just referred 
 to, the brethren there assembled ret^uested Deacon Selden and myself to wait 
 upon him, for the ])urpose of ol»taining his approval of the preamble and reso- 
 lution which had been prepared. 
 
 I called upon Deacon Johnston the day following, and informed him ol'the 
 position of matti'rs as regards the contemplati'd Council, and the reasons for 
 altering the arningement previously made ; stating at the same tinu', as nearly 
 lus 1 could recollect, the ide;w embodied in the preaHd)!(> and resolution. 
 
 Deacon Johnston and 1 then arranged to meet ]\lr. Si'lden at my Ikjusc the 
 same afternoon, when the document having Ijeen shown him, (Deacon 
 Johnston) he took exception to some of the expressions and statements con- 
 tained therein, which, at his suggestion, were omitted or nujdihed, and as 
 then fnially matured it was presented to the Church at its meeting on the 
 evening of that day. I n\ay add, that Deacon Jolinston (and, indeed, such 
 was my own teeling) did not, by any means, ap[trov(^ of the changi' of proce- 
 dure in retereuee to the Council, but moved, as I believed, with an earnest 
 desire to have unanimity in the Church, he consented to the action as above 
 detailed. 
 
 D. McN. rAKKEU. 
 
 The foregoing is, to the best of our recollection, a correct statement oi'the 
 proceedings in reference to the meetings and resolution reterred to. 
 
 Awftist Gth, 18G/ 
 
 K. N. ]{KCKwiTir. 
 
 ]\Iy recollection of what passed at the Deacon's meeting at my house, above 
 referi'cd t(j, is ver\' iuilislinct. I do not recollect who projxised a Couneil, or 
 anything more than that there was some general convei-sation on the subject; 
 nor do I remember that it was agreed that it shouM be recommemled to the 
 Church to call a Council. 
 
 J. AV. Nutting. 
 
 li 
 
 Sill, — T make the following statements and observations in connection with 
 pub)ects treati'd of in the pi-cambles and resolutions, A\"ith a cojiy of whicln- ou 
 furnislied me at my rcxpiest; as well as in reply to the desire of the Church, 
 that I should furnish a " written statement of orertui-es made, if any," to the 
 Deacons, at a meeting at ^Ir. Nutting's, by Dr. Pryor, for a Council. 
 
 At the meeting ai i\Ir. Nutting's alludeil to, tiie calling of a Coimcil of 
 MInisti'rs was suggested by me. Dr. Pryor nt once concurred, and the jiro- 
 posal met with general acce|)tance. Mr. IJeckwith at first exj)ressed reluct- 
 ance, but he presently ac(piiesced. The conversation then turned on pei-sons 
 
67 
 
 Ig'ts witli 
 |e olHcu- 
 111. 
 
 [irtaiiK'd 
 Jiviil of a 
 
 pore, be 
 
 [iiicli, up 
 liiii'iicecl 
 
 lie ea.se 
 listed hy 
 pi were 
 It. The 
 I'l fhose 
 witliout 
 ■(■((■iTed 
 
 lo wait 
 id reso- 
 
 who would bo suitable, and at easy distance, and many were named. Tlie 
 discussion eoncernin<j; the nuiiil)ers of the Council was harmonious, and 
 allo;;vther five from antagonism, and we parted with tlie exjircs.-i'd ileehtration 
 that llie Deacons shouhl reeonunend to the Ciunvli at its aiiproaehin};- meetinjf 
 the caliin<;- of » Council on all tlie matters eharM;ed aj^'ainst'to Di. Pryor. 
 
 Dr. PryorV desire that a Council should be called, was iieartily and earn- 
 estly expressed ; tliere was notliin<j; to Iciid me to .--lipiKise that the dis|)(,hition 
 of tlie Deacons in favour of tiie measure was not sincere; ;ind the enifa;:ement 
 Avas one from which neither party could, with pro|)riety, recede witliout the 
 consent ot tlie other, except on some imjierative reason. 
 
 1 bc;^^ that it be rememin'red that at that time the reports of the Committees, 
 with tlie evidence, liad not been jHvsented to the Church, and tiiat the 
 ajtpointment of ii Council then, might have prevented tlieir jiublicity, until after 
 jiiilicious and impartial brethren had considered th»' wliole c:i,He ; — a thing 
 surely not undesirable in view of the interests of relieion, and certainly very 
 imjtortaiit to Dr. i'ryor, as tending to avoid ha.-ty and premature opinions to 
 his ])rejudice. The Deacons, without the consent of Dr. i'ryor, failed to carry 
 out this enfiagement. 
 
 Oil the aftei-iioon before the Church was to meet, Mr. Selden and Dr. Parker 
 informed me tliat the intenti(jn of calling a Council had been abandoned, in 
 consecpience of the opposition that prevailed among members of the Ciiurch. 
 It was nientioncfl as a reason iissigiied l)y some, tliat oiu- of the charges against 
 Dr. Pryor being couiu'cted with accoinits, — a subj<'ct that niinistei-s weri- not 
 generally (jualified to deal with, — aud a Council therefi)re bc-ing inaj)propriate 
 for that matter, it was not thought expedient to call one on the other charge. 
 IVIr. Selden and Dr. Parker also meutioned that afler the meeting at Mr. 
 Nutting's, tliei'c had bei'U ,i meeting of i)eac<jns, and the two committees, (of 
 which 1 had not had any knowledge), and that resolutions had been prepared 
 to be moved at the approaching Ciuircii meetiug, which they then canu' to sub- 
 mit to me; and tlu'y spoke in s'lich cDunection that I dea.rly understood that 
 the jjroposal for a Council iunl been over-;'uled at tiiat meeting, and these 
 resolutions then substitute<l. On a future occasion, om^ or mcjre of the mem- 
 bers oi' the Committee denied that at the meeting referred to, the projK)sal 
 for a Council had been considered. Dr. Parker seemed to admit this; ftiid 
 exiilainetl that the o])positiou to a Council which he and ^Ir. Selden had 
 reft'rred to, came fW)m members of the Cluu'ch, irrespective of that meeting. 
 
 It is unnecessary tliat I should insist on tlie impression plainly made on my 
 mind by the couuiiuuication of these two Deacons; nor is it necessary to en- 
 quire whether they obtained their knowledge of the existence of o])i)osition to 
 the calling of a Council at a meeting, or by individual interconi-se with mem- 
 bers, nor whether the opposition was more or less universal ; it is enough tiiat 
 Mr. Seidell aud Dr. Parker considered the ojipositiou existing in the Church 
 to the calling of a Council to be such as to jii-^tity them in abandoning tliat 
 measure, notwithsfaudinii their arrangement witli Dr. Pryor. 
 
 This communicr.tion tilled me with surprise and peri)h>xity, and after short 
 reflection, I saw no course left but to accept the resolution which they subiiiit- 
 ted to me touching the charge of immoral conduct. It was corilined to the 
 dissolving of the pastoral relation. I knew that the jiower of the Church in 
 that ])articu!ar could not be long resisted ; and Mr._ Selden and Dr. Parker 
 assured me that in drawing that resolution the intention had been to reject 
 any imputation of guilt, and to ground it solely on the fact of iudiscretioii. 
 As I read it, that seemed its necessary cotistruction, and it w.as amended 
 and made more explicit in that respect at a subsequent meeting of the 
 Church. Having consented to this disposal of that 'charge, I su;.'gested the 
 leaving out of needless preambles, and some modifications in form. This 
 concurrence has been u.sed disingenuouslv since. 
 
58 
 
 AVhen tlie Cliurch met in the evening, tliis resolution was passed, and 1 sup- 
 posed that tlie cliarge against Dr. Piyor, on wliteli it was founded, liad been, 
 as far as th(^ Church was eoneerned, finally disposed of. Th« charge connticted 
 Avith Miss Vans' ac^eounts stood ovi-r, and w;ks not brought to a conclusion until 
 several weeks after, wlicn certain mistakes and incorrect oharge.s inude by 
 Dr. Pryor on both side«s of tlie account, having been ascertainu<l, the (piestion 
 for the Chun;h was narrowed to a single point, viz., whether ths incorrect 
 charges made to Miss Vass' prejudice, ha<l been made by Dr. I'rjor knowingly 
 sind fraudulently. I believed, and urged on the Ciiurch, that the facts did not 
 warrant the assumption of a fraudulent purpose ; — failing in thii, I besought 
 them to submit that (piestion to a Council, ratlier than venture themsclve? 
 on the hazardous responsibility of undertaking to read the heart, and con- 
 demn a brother on such an issui- ; — and surely none can be better (pialified 
 for a (piestion of tiiat nature than ministers. I again failed. My motion tor a 
 a Council was negatived 12 to 8, and then followed a vote of condemnation on 
 the main (piestion, by Avhicli Dr. Pryor was degraded and worse than excluded. 
 
 On my motion for a Council, Dr. Parker declared his assent, pn^vided both 
 charges were included ; in tiiis he w;is fbllow(!d by some others, and I believe 
 he and they voted in the minority. I had made my motiou for a Council 
 with the concurrence of Dr. Pryor, but I had no authority to either reject or 
 accept such a condition on his part, and my own nature revolted agjiiiisit its 
 injustice. I did not, therefore, agree to it; but I am far from being aware 
 that this was tlie ground on which my resolution was rejected, as would seem 
 to be su<x<ireste(l in the Ciiurch rec'ord I am considerini'-. There wiui manitlfited 
 on that and former occasions great repugnance to the calling of u Council at 
 all ; and I believe any motion for a Council would have been negatived iinleus, 
 perhaps, tlu; satisfaction of bringing uj) the first charge against Dr. Pryor 
 might have prevailed over that repugnance with a suflicient number. It 
 cannot be forgotten how much th(3 ability of Granville Street Church, to deal 
 witli the (piestions, was spoken of in contrast, with anything that was to be 
 expected from a Council of ministers. 
 
 This condition, under protest of which a Council was on this occa.'^ion denied, 
 affords manitiist evidence of the malign disposition of the active agents in these 
 tratvsactions toward their late pastor, and of their callous indifFerenci^ to the 
 feelings of those members of the Church who were ch)sely related to him. 
 
 Dr. Pryor might have demanded a review of the case — the Association 
 might re([iiire it — but the Church having (mce 'ulfilled its junction, tenderness, 
 conciliation and brotherly kindness, forbade it.s voluntary resunij)tion of a duty 
 that ou^ht to have been a painful one. Not only were these Christian iiriiici- 
 ples violated, but the plain claim of justice was tranijiled underfoot l)y this 
 act. To renew the consideration of a charge on which the Church had already 
 pa.«sed sentence, and in relation to which tht>.y h.ad inflicted ])unisliiiieiit, was a 
 violation of a fundamental principle of British justice, and I jiresuiiK! gospel 
 principle is not less consistent than human laws; it was especially unjust and 
 unreasonable in regard to Dr. Pryor, Vjecause he had been more than willing 
 to have a Council on both charges, and had been denied that Council when it 
 might have been essentially useful. As regarded mycelf, it wan a ilagrant 
 ])reach of good faith, inasmuch as 1 had agreed to the re.-iolution dismissing 
 I)r. Prvcjr from his pastorate on the express understanding that guilt was not 
 imputed, and on tiie necessarily implied understanding that the charge 
 involved in that resolution was by it finally disposed of. The reason assigned 
 for this injustice — that the two cases were elpsely related, flee. — is without just 
 foundation; and if it wcsre true in fact, could not justify the violation of the 
 principles I have mentioned. 
 
 At a Church meeting since the late Central Association, a discussion having 
 arisen as to contradictory statements respectiiijj; the calling ol' a Council, 
 
Ill I sup- 
 Ill I l)(ji;n, 
 MiK'cted 
 i>ii until 
 udi' by 
 jiu'stiori 
 I'orrect 
 
 JVrill(r]y 
 
 <lnl not 
 |»*Soii;rht 
 'nisc'lvc? 
 
 Ill con- 
 n.ilified 
 |i'n fijr a 
 tsDu on 
 I'liidcd. 
 ■I I I'oth 
 l>i.^ili.'ve 
 Council 
 y'l'ot or 
 tinjit its 
 
 tw.ire 
 il seem 
 
 59 
 
 made at tlie Association. ))y Dr. Pryor ■Mfssrs. Soldcn and ncckwitli, allcr 
 liL'ai-ing the. explanations made, I rliaV<,H'd tliose two deacons will) liuvin>: been 
 jruilty of disinj,'enuously nils^loadinip' tlie Association by the su[ipression'"ot' the 
 trutli. Mr. lii-ekwith <U'elan,d that lie would not be satisfied until t!ut charge 
 had been cleared away. I wjus not present at the Church nieetiiiir, nhen tlie 
 resolutions and [)reaniblcs under consideration were pawed, but jud^;lni/ from 
 their tenor they are desijfned fur this clearing; awav. 
 
 I am sorry to be obliged to say that this C'hure'li record lu of pre cisi'ly the 
 Manie disin<:;enuouiJ nature, as were the statements uf the two deacons. The 
 artifice consists in asserting; a fact wliich is true, but ti'oni which an inf«r«nci; 
 arises that is inconsistent with the truth, when all the facts are known. The 
 whole dneument partakes of this character. The last resolution is a tla^rant 
 exauiple. It runs thus : 
 
 ^' Uesolved further. That this Churcli allirms that at its meeting (May in) 
 next fbllowinjT the meetino- of the di'acons above referred to, at which Dr. 
 Pryor was present the frreater part of the eveniii;^, and which wa'^ conveni-d 
 sfu'cially to pass finally upon the (■Ii;ir;j.-e ;ij;ainst Dr. Pryor in relation to .Mrs 
 AIc.Millan, no projjosal was made by Dr. Pryor, the deacons, or other memiiers 
 of the Church for a Cijiincil to advise upon the charjies under consideration." 
 
 Here is a stronj.'' aflirmation, such as is used when a fact is controverted, and 
 the afrirination is made in relation to the contention, whether a Council had 
 been desired and <lenied, and in that connection the nece.«sary infi'ience is 
 that a Council, not having- been asked, it ha<l not been denied; and the further 
 inference may reasonably l)e nia<le from such an aflirniation, in such a con- 
 nection, that hatl it lieen iisked, a Council would have been fxranted. Such arc 
 the inferences which anv straiiLCci' to the, circumstances would draw. Such are 
 tlir inferences that this Church record, as it stands, will carry on its face for 
 time to come. Ilei-e stands tIk^ condemnation of ])r. Pryor's statement; 
 here is the vimlication of the statements of deacons Sehien and Beckwith ; an<l 
 yet these inferences are all false, and were known to be false when the reso- 
 lutions were passed. The members of *he Church who passed tlie.-e preambles 
 and resolutions, knew that it was not asserted that any application IkuI been 
 made at the Church mi'etin<j alluded to for a Council, and that the allirmance 
 wa.s uncalled f()r, and illusory; but they knew also, some of them as j)arties in 
 tJie transactions, and others t'rom explan.itiims made in their hearinjr, the reason 
 why it had not been moved ; for they knew that a Counril had been desired 
 and af:;reed upon, and I'nal the aiireement to move for a Council made by the 
 Deacons had not been acted upon, because of the repiijxnance and o])position 
 existiiKf amon<>' the members of the Ciiurch. to the cal!!nij;of a Council; and 
 they knew that in consequence of such oiipusition. a dilferent cour-ic had Ixh'ii 
 followed at the ineetini; ti'oni that previously afj;reed upon. Knowinjx all this, 
 tlie two Deacons Selden and Meckwith liavinjr at the Association concealed, 
 and misrepresented the truth under verbal evasions, the Church membi-i's who 
 have united in this church record now seek to justify them by the same means, 
 
 inakiiii; truth the servant ol'i'alseh 1. They ask what " overtures" Dr. Pryor 
 
 made for a Council. It may be said he niaile none, but nevertheless lie desired 
 and a'jri'eed to a Council. With confident boldness they as.sert, he never applied 
 for a Council to "a meetin<; of the Churcli." yet he agreed with the Deacons, 
 that they should move for, and recommend one to the Church. They raise 
 the inference that he was never refused a Council, and that it might have been 
 had tor aiking, when the Coiuieil w:*.* not moved for. only liecause of the op- 
 ])osition to it existing in the Ciiurch. .Surely these Church members hare to 
 learn the first lessons on the u.itur*' of truth. 
 
 Let the members of GrauTiHe Street Church rdsmember that as often as they 
 represent or insinuate under any pretext or form of expression, that Dr. Pryor 
 failed to have a Council, because he did not desire it, and not because the 
 
60 
 
 iii 
 
 Church wciuhl not liave it, they In-aml t\nnr own <h'aoons, Sehlen and Parker, 
 with (iMiid and viIsi'IkjkiI in ihcir ('oMnnuuIcalidMs wit!i me. 'I'here is no 
 eseapL' t'roia tlie (lilciunia IT thi're was nn iiisnprrjihU' or st-rions (^Ijslacle 
 in the way of a Council, owin;^ to opposition in the Chiu'ch, then I was 
 fjros^ly (li'ci'ivcid and Dr. IVvor Wiu*! "grossly detratided. On the other hand, 
 if those (U-acon- did not (U'ceive nie, tiicn it is a fact that J)r. I'ryor, liavin;^ 
 desin'il a Council on botli (!har;^es, at an early Kla;j;e of the proci'edin;iS, 
 one was not moved for, and had, hei-ause ut" ol)jections a^^ainst a Council 
 prevaiJinji amoni; members of the Church. Hnt I helit^ve those Deacons 
 in that instance did not deceive nic. I btilicve as well from what they 
 told me. as from what \ heard anil saw mystdf afterwards, tliat th^re was 
 in tlie Cimrch a wide-s])read opposition to a Conncil, and any attemjjt to elude 
 that f let i; hut a warrin'j; a^^ainst the truth, all the more despi(ral)le when 
 cloaked under veri)al evasions. 
 
 After a Council hiid in ellect been denied wIk^u both ehar;:;es were open 
 for considerati(m ; after a Council was denied on one, when one (jnly remaiia;d 
 for deciision ; after having; wreaked the power oi' the Church an<l done an 
 injury that no Council can now fully repair, these Church members had tiie 
 boldness to call an <?./■ /Kirle Councii ; and lon<i' sinci', castini;' oil' (ii(^ aftituih'. 
 of impartial jude;es and the calm diifuity andjust consideration of a Church of 
 Christ, they have ])nrsued a stricken man, slru},'gling in an nm(|ual contest, 
 with trie virulent spirit ol'intlained partlzans. 
 
 Oh, that they had acted in a nobler, hi<j;her spirit and Ci-istian tinninM', and 
 under a wiser discreti(in ! How mui-h ofa^ony to a sullerinLi; man, and his 
 familv. and relalivt's had been nutiiruted — how much of rend in;' of the Clairch 
 had l)een spared ! 
 
 In <^ivin<r this narrative of the tacts, I have j^one further than tlie request 
 contained in your first note, ])ut 1 have not ji'one beyond the matters intro- 
 diice(l into the Church record I have been considerlnj;-, nor fnrtluT. citlu^r in 
 tlu^ facts or declarations, tiian is proper ii)r vindicaiin<^ the truth. I have to 
 reipiest that tins (Mjummnieation may be entered on the Church record — not 
 be merely filed witli the documents of the Church as your note prolijsses. 
 
 I am. Sir. your obedient servant, 
 
 J. AV. JOUNSTOX. 
 
 To B. H. Eatox, Esq., Clerk of the Gmnrilla Street Baptist Church. 
 AiKjmt 2'Jth^ 1867. 
 
 PIlOCEEDINtiS OI-' COUNCIL. 
 
 The Council invitcil in accordance with the resolution of July l'2tii. con- 
 sistiiiLi- of Rev. Dr. Sourilen. Rev. J. Davis, Rev. Charles Randall, and bix-thren 
 T. R. PattiJlo and William Faulkner, met in the Tvstry of the Granville Street 
 Baptist Church, at 11 o'clock, A.M.. on Thursday, August 8th, 18(>7. Tiio 
 following; is the record of their proceedings : — 
 
 To TIIK GrANVII.LK StUKKT ClllTR(;iI, &c., &c. 
 
 In answer to the eall received from you, Ave met in the vestry of Granville 
 Street C'hurch on Thursday. .Vngust Sth. .Ai'tei-we lia'l organized, read por- 
 tions of'.Seripture and eiii^aged in prayer. l)ef(»re we pi"oce.ede<l to any business 
 His Honor Judge Johnston, on behalf of Dr. i'rvor, read a letter signe<l by the 
 Dr.. a copy of which was |)resetit»'d t<> each o7i«' of us. accompanied by remarks 
 assumiiiLC th"; we came with tlie intention of eon<lemning Dr. Pi-sor and justity- 
 ing the Church. His Ho?ior then askeil, in the nam»» of Dr. Pryor, on what 
 authority we met, wii.at representations had been maile tons to induce ns to 
 come, and the object for which we came. In reply we complained of the 
 wrong done to us l»y Dr. Pryor, in assuming that we had met to condeinn him ; 
 
i.'^ Ill) 
 
 |i I ^\•;ls 
 
 ■ !i;iU(l, 
 
 li;ivin,<r 
 
 I'W linos, 
 
 -'oiiiicil 
 
 Ik llii'y 
 
 |'» <'!inl(.( 
 
 61 
 
 tliMt tluMV was lU)(liiii;Lr ill ""!■ I';i.''t coiiilnct. ikh- in onr i-cliiti.uis to Dr. I'ryor — 
 ill i\\ct tlicrc wiis no cviilciicc InjuMify the .•osiiinptidii. In ivjilv to tin- .Iml^re'a 
 qiicstions, wo Htati'd, tlitit tliu nioliitioii of tlic Clmn'li of I -Jtli Jiily, (wliii-li Tviw 
 n-ii'l) w;is(»ur aiitliorlty Ibr nu'('tiii<r, tint lu) i-t'prcM'iitallons Iifyi>ii<l liiat rcso- 
 liilionjiad hci-n made to iw. and tliat tlic dIiJccLs (o wliicli w<- (^liiinld dini-t onr 
 attention would lie ibr our ■iiil)sc(|ii('nt coiisit it-ration. At our lU'.xt incctiiijr wo 
 a.^lvfd li.r all li'tlcrs from Dr. rryor and riMiIntions of iIjc Clnnxdi Mil)-i'(|iifnt to 
 i!k' 12tli of July. Di-. T's. li'tti-Vs of tin- 17tli and •-'.'(ili of July were laid l)fl()ro 
 u^. and llu' ai-fioii of tin' C'linrcli n-ji rfino' tin- iirojioNai ('onlaincd in tlir IclttT, 
 vi/., that all ivlativi'sof I)r. P., and of any nicinijcrof tliat poition <>t tl;t' t'lmn-Ii 
 wli.) had taki'ii part in tli('-<' ])ro(ft'diiijrs, hecxcludi-d from the Council, pro- 
 vided tli(; iiii!id)ev 1)0 increased to twelve. 
 
 The Coininittee of the, ChiirclM-.Nplained to ns that when the Church reject, d 
 that [Jioposal all the arraiiii-ement.s were finally foni'liid»'d with reganl to tlio 
 
 l)resi'nt «.()iineil; and they were not dispost'tl to throw everylhiiii: info coiilii- 
 sioii'liy attemptinjr to alter their eomse, e.><peeially when .^o lar^e anuiiiiieras 
 tM'elve was contained in th.e proposal. 
 
 The .siigirestion was made hy ns, whether an arraiiffenient i()r a Council, 
 aceordiiii;- to the terms of" the resolution of the Central A.soeiation, mi^ht not 
 lie made; tiie Committee stated that it would he ns<'le.-s to reeoinmcnd mm!, a 
 course lo the Church, after the faihiri' slafe<l in their resolution of \'2l\\ July. 
 
 Dr. P's. letter to us, ivli-rrcd to above, eoiitains the ibllov,iii<: pa.«sa<;i's, — •• It 
 is not, however, my object in tins pajier to discuss nx\y (|iiestion betwet'ii the 
 Chmciiand myself. Aly jiin-pose is to protest ai;aiiist vour aiithorily, to deal 
 with anytliinir airectiii;^,' my character or interests."' " I shall not, nor shall any 
 one on my behalf, or with my consent, appear betliie y(ni, in any respect, to 
 sanction your proceed! n;:rs, should yon venture to act ; and I fbrmally tiirbid 
 y(;ur doiiiL; anything by which tny character or interc-ts in;iy be alii'cted either 
 directly or indirectly." " I ]}rif you to Ir.' assured that in the course I now 
 ])ursne, I desi<rn no pei-sonal olH-nce or disrespect to you, or any one of you. I 
 n'peat, my earnest desire is. tiiat a mutual Council be called, of such Aveijrht fiir 
 tiumiiers and the character of its members a-^may commiind respect within and 
 witliout tlu' denomination lu'iv and abroad. In the nomination of such :i 
 Council the Cliurcli Avoidd not be debarred from otrerin^' your names, while 
 the mere common justice avouM be awarded me of havinji- a voice in tiie selec- 
 ticMioi'tlu' men v.dio were topass judiiUieiit on interests dearer tome and my 
 family than life itself, or any earthly consideration." 
 
 Uninfluenced by any other consideration than the fact that Dr. P. declined, 
 in the stronirest terms, to meet us, we laid ilown the broad principle of justice! 
 so admirably laiil down by the I'oinan (iovernor Festus. — •• It is not the manner 
 of'the liomans to deliver any man to die beflire that he who in acciiseil htive the 
 accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself concernin;,^ the 
 crime laid a;j;ainst him." As Dr. Pryor would n«t appear before us. we did not 
 see how we could invest!;iate the charp'S a^^aiint him v/itliont violatinji' th.-it 
 priiicijile. The Connniftee of the Church a.-ked us to allow them to shew cause 
 why we should proceed to investitrafe the char;,a's a<iainst Dr. Pryor. 
 
 . This we could not tleny them, seeiii'j; we had a letter before us frfim Dr. IVyor, 
 and had listened to the remarks of Judiie Johnston a^kiu;^' us fiir the authority 
 under which Ave met. Tlie (juestion wa.s then aivue.l. Our authority from 
 tlie Church was pointed out. 'J'o this Ave aureed. The imjiartial (diameter of 
 the Coimcil Avas insisted on. This Ave aflirined. It Avas then ur^xed that if 
 cliar!i;e.s Avere made aji'ainst any (jiie. and he refused to plead, jud;;ment must 
 go by default. This Ave admitted, provided the validity of the triliunal Avere 
 unexceptionable ; but Ave were not a Council chosen in the way recommended 
 by the Association ; in a literal. tliou,L!h not in any bad seii-e. Ave Avere an 
 ex parte Council, that is, Ave Avere chosen by the Church only and not mutually 
 
rlioscm by Dr. Pi-yor and tlio Church. If wo nrocpodwd to invpstigatc in tlio. 
 alisi'iici' <il" Dr. IVyor, our dvcision would justly he opi'u to the cliiiriit' of a 
 dt'i.'isioii louiidcd on r.x /xtrtc ovhWuvi', auil would n(it liavi; the wi-i^lit which 
 a decision arrivcil at by a Coum.'il chosen mutually would have. 
 
 The Conuuitte.e then ur;i,eil tli;it very serious char;/es oi" cruelty and injus- 
 tice wer»3 iu;id(! a;raiust theui, that tlu^y W(M'e desirous of an ojtportunity of 
 (dcarinji theniselve.^, ami wished to asctertain the views of the Council res|H>ct- 
 in;; the investifration of their i)roceeilinirs in Dr. Pryor's case. The di.scusslon 
 on this point continued until adjouriuneut on Timrsday evenin;^. 
 
 ()u Friday inornin;^, aftisr consultation by themselves, the Council aj;rcod 
 to addriiss the followinji letter to Dr. J'ryor : — 
 
 Rkv. and Dkaii Stii, — We, tlie ■■indei*si<;ncd. composin;' a Council con- 
 vened at the call of the (rranville (street Church, have received n letter from 
 
 you atldresscd to each of us. We bc;:^ to Msstire you that we are not aniiuMtcd 
 by any fecliiijf ot' parti/anship ; we come from a distance, two ot'iis tVom oilier 
 provinces, and are under the inlluence, of th(> kindest fcelini,'s towards yourself. 
 
 The terms of your letter to us forbid us to ho|)e that you will meet with us 
 for the purpose ofenterin;^; upon a thoroii;^!! invcsti;j;ation of the charges made 
 ajiainst yourchariictcr. and tiiiis availin^i' yours(!lf of the o[)[)()rtunity alforded 
 by an impartial Council, of substantiating your innocence. 
 
 Our object in writing; to you is to ascertain whether you will consent to 
 f>uch a mutual ('ouncil, both in rcj^ard to tlie luunber of its mcinbei*s and its 
 mod(! of selection, as we may, in our judniiu-ul, advise. 
 
 We re(juest an answer at your earliest convenience ; and if you would 
 favor us with a personal interview, we shall 1)0 happy to see you." 
 
 Sinned bv each meml)er of the Council. 
 
 This letter was despatched to Dr. Pryor before we ailjourucd I'or dinuiT. 
 
 At the afternoon session, in order that time miffht not be lost while we were 
 waitinji; for the Dr.'s reply, we discussed the followinji; (jueslion with the 
 brethren, — Were we williu;^ to encpiire into the following points V 
 
 1 . Tlio question relatinsj; to the callin"; of Councils. 
 
 2. The mode of procedure on the part of tlu; Church whether it w;w 
 re;fular, &c. 
 
 ;!. Whetlier the decision of the Church, in the circumstances in which they 
 were placed and in the light of the evidence bofi^re them, were not such as they 
 ought to have given. 
 
 In reply to the above, the following miuutc was recorded, and a copy of It 
 handed to the Committee: — 
 
 That we were not prcjiared to investigate the charges against Dr. Pryor, 
 becausi- Dr. P. declines to meet with us, and we cannot, therefore, make the 
 full and searching en(piiry into the subject wliich we think necessary to the 
 deliv(!ry of an impartial decision. 
 
 AVe are prcp'ired to cmpiire into the proceedings of the Church, in relation 
 to Dr. Pryor'scase, as far iis it involves the following particulars, viz. : — 
 
 1. The ipiestlon relating to the call of Council through every stiige of the 
 proceedings. 
 
 2. The mode In which the Church proceeded in Dr. Pryor's ca-^e ; whether 
 they awarded him every faellity for vindicating himself that could fairly be 
 claimed. 
 
 In the evening the Council received a niply Irom Dr. Pryor^ tuwhicli the 
 following answer was sent early the following morning ; — • 
 
 it 
 
|iii the 
 
 of H 
 
 Iwliioli 
 
 inj'iis- 
 |iif_v of 
 
 lusslon 
 
 I con- 
 
 (i'oni 
 
 |M;ito(l 
 
 <)lli('r 
 
 itil IIH 
 IM;i(li> 
 onliMl 
 
 
 Ht 
 
 68 
 
 Vestry, Snturdny, 7 o'clock, A . M. 
 Rkv. AND Dkau Sik, — \a it i? possible, from the tenor of your re[»ly to oi 
 letter of) ('sti'nl;iy's (liito, tliat you inisunderrttood our intention in tlic requi' 
 we ni;i(l(', ;illo\v us to iuueud our eucjuiry l)y askiii;; wiietlier you will confe.r 
 with us either in person or by letter, for the j)iu-pose of agreeing u[)on both the 
 iiuinlier of members iiiid laodu (/f selection of a Council, to be nuituuUy chosen 
 by yourself and the Chureh. 
 
 An iiiiswer by the bearer will oblige. 
 
 Signed by each member of the Council. 
 
 In answer to the above the following letter was received from Dr. Pryor : 
 
 Halifax, A Ill/list \Oih. I8f.7. 
 
 Dkah HiuvniUKX, — In reply to your note of this morning, I beg leave Ut 
 nay that I have not the slightest olijection to meet you as my bretluvn in 
 your individual eapaeity, to converse and advise with you on the subject 
 rell'rred to in yoiw uotw. I will meet with you as the friends of the (,'liurch 
 ju»t as I would with the Church itself, to consult respecting a mutual Council. 
 f will meet \r'ith you at any hour y<Mi appoint, either at my own house, or at 
 your lodgings, or any otliei- placi' except the vestrv. I except the vwstry lest 
 the character of our meeting be misunilerstood. lours vcrv irulv, 
 
 J. PllYOK. 
 
 The members of the Councd resolved to meet Dr. I', ut his own house 
 iiccording to the terms of his letters, and inmiediately proceeded thither. 
 After ctmversation with Dr. 1*. ami .Judge Jolniston. avc received from Dr. 1'. 
 a decided an>wer that lus niuuber, twelve, was his ultimatmn ; a numliei- liy no 
 means too largt? in his own opinion when the inten'sts at stake were cnusidered. 
 
 We have reported to you the jmiposal of Dr. I*, without on'ering any 
 advice thereon. 
 
 Dear brethren, we await your decision, and shall be happy to render you 
 any furtluT assistance in our power. 
 
 In rejjly to the above we received the report of the Church, which is 
 recorded in the minutes of their ])roceedings, August I'ith, ISf!?, a copy of 
 which we handed to Dr. I'ryor accompanied with the i(>ll(nving letter: — 
 
 llaUfax, August \2llt, 1867. 
 
 Rrcv. AXO Dear Siu, — We beg leave to inform you that we reported your 
 proposition, c(mcerning a Council, to the (Iranville St. Church, and we now 
 enclose a resolution atlopted by them, in relation thereto, this evening, fW>m 
 which you will see that they have concurred in a Council of tweive, to be 
 nominated according to the plan ])roposed by yourself 
 
 We have to request that you will name the earliest possible hour to-morrow 
 morniu"; ti)r us to wait on vou. to obtain the list of brethren whom you wish 
 to nominate. 
 
 Signed by each member of the Council. 
 
 We agreed to meet at nin(^ o'clock next morning for the list of names. Tlie 
 next day (August IJUh) Dr. P. waited on us, and read a letter asking ftir a 
 copy of till! (!onnnuiiication from us to the Church, referred to in their resolu- 
 tion. We handed him a copy of our report to the Church, August 12th. 
 
 Dr. P's. letter, containing th(! list of names, was read. The brethren nomi- 
 nated by him were — 
 
 Rev. I. E. Bill. St. John, N. B. 
 
 Rev. W^ S. McKenzie, St. John, N. B. 
 
 Rev. George Armstrong, Bridgetown. 
 
 Rev. A. S. Hunt, Cornwallis. 
 
 Bro. James Rand, Canning. 
 
 Bro. Ambrose Dodge, Wilmot. 
 
64 
 
 A copy of the above list was then handed to the Clerk of the Church, 
 Augiir^t 11 til. 
 
 Vestrij, GranviUe Sfrctt Clmnli. 
 
 Rev. and Dkah Srit, — Tt was yesterday ascertained by telcLcrapli that tlie 
 Kcv. I. E. Bill coidd nut eotne to Halifax innnediatcly, ami that the ''v. W. 
 iVlcKcnzie is certainly in the United States. Dndcr these eircnnista es the 
 prujHJScd Council cannot meet till after tlie Convention. 
 
 The earliest day on wliicli it eouhl be assembled is Thursday, the 20th inst., 
 and as that day would be most convenient' for all the niembei-s of the Council 
 who may attend the Convention, we propose the •if'th inst. tor t!ie meetin;i of 
 said Council. Will you l)e so kind as to inform us, at y:i >• earliest conveni- 
 ence, whether you agree to our proposal as to the dny of meeting. 
 
 Signed on behalf of us, 
 
 J. Davis. 
 
 To the above we received the following reply: — 
 
 Di.Ai: I)KKT[fi!i:N'. — .\ltiioiigli Iliave not had tlie opportunity of consulting 
 the brethren whom I have named in t!ie (.'oiuicil, yet I tliink tliat t!ie time 
 named, viz., "JOth Aug., v;ill probably suit their convenience. J Avill write at 
 once and ascertain tliis. If anylliing ^liould require to l)e altered witli refer- 
 ence to till' day, I will communicate witli you on the sulijeet. 
 
 I shall he iirejmred to name the day definitely as sixni as I can get an 
 answer from St. John. 
 
 Yours trulv, 
 
 J. I'rvok, 
 To this letter we replied : — 
 
 llicv. AXi> Dic.VH Sill, — 'We have received your reply to our letter of this 
 morning's date. If you will please refer to that letter you will find I lint we 
 simply ask you to intbrm us Avliethcr you agree to our propi>sal, that t!ie 
 2yth inst. be naraed as the day for the Council to meet. 
 
 IJe so kind as to furni-:h us with a definite reply nt y(»ur earliest convenience. 
 
 Youi-s, &e., 
 
 J. Davis. 
 Arif/itst lAth. Oil belialf of the brethren. 
 
 This jirocured tiir us the following definite reply: — ■ 
 
 Dkai! BiumruK.v, — With reference to the 2!)tli of August, as the suitable 
 time <'or tiie mci'ting of the Cnuiieil, T beg leave to Siiy tlial 1 fully agree *o 
 that time for holding the Council, tli'High, of course, nor having comnrunicated 
 with the brethren whom I have named on the Council, I cannot say how far 
 it will suit t'lem, but I do not apprehend any dilliculty to prevent their meet- 
 ing at tiiat time. 
 
 Yours tru]\-, 
 
 J. Davi.s. 
 
 Having thus made all pirp.iratoiy arrangements for the summoning of a 
 Council chosen according to the terms of the resolutifm of the N. S. Central 
 Association, we left the matter in the hands of the brethren to carry tlu-m out. 
 
 C Si'L'UDEN, Sac'y. of the Council, 
 
 Awpir.t Ut/i, 1807. 
 
 Chureh meeting. Deacon Seklen in the chair. Miuulis of last meeting 
 l?ad and approved. 
 
 Tile tidlowing lettei' from the (^aiueil. now convened in iniineetion with 
 tin' case of Dr. I'ryor, was rend and received. 
 
 [Norr,. — This h'tter has been lost. It contained Dr. Pryor's ultimatum to 
 the ellect that hi- wi)uld agree to a Council of twelve — si.v to be chosen by 
 
 pel 
 
 re 
 
 V 
 
 na 
 
 te 
 
 ll 
 
 ini 
 of 
 un 
 
 a I 
 11 
 
Iivli, 
 
 (lie 
 I W. 
 
 tiie 
 
 iiist., 
 liiK'il 
 liu" of 
 ivi'iii- 
 
 ris. 
 
 I ling 
 
 65 
 
 him and six by the Church — four niinifit.oi's and two hiynicn hy each party — 
 "the relatives of J)r. Pryor and of any niembcr of that portion of the Church 
 who has taken part in these proceedinifs lieretofore conducted hy you to be 
 exchi<kMl"] 
 
 \Vhereupon th.c followinp; resolution wius moved by the Clerk, seconded by 
 l>ro. lioliinson, and jtassed: — 
 
 On hi'arin<j; read the coimuiniication, (hated tlio 12th inst., from the minis- 
 tei-s and brethren composing th.' Council now convened, 
 
 licsolcf'f/, — 1. That in the earnest hope that no (iu'ther f)bst;u'le will inter- 
 pose to prevent a most tlioron^ii and impartial investigation, in the presence 
 of Dr. Pryor, of oil the subjects mentioned in their resolution of the 12th ult., 
 the Chim-h accept the ultimatum of Dr. Pryor. anil proceed at once to 
 increase the present number of the Counci 1 to twelve; the class of persons 
 and the manner of choosing them to be as contained in said communication. 
 
 2. That in addition to the present munber on said Coimcil, viz., — Revds. 
 J. Davis, Dr. S])urilen and Charh-s Randall, and T. 11. Pattillo and William 
 I-'aulkner, Estp-s., they choose Rev. S. March of Rridgewater. 
 
 .'). That the Church will provide for all expensts connected with the 
 attendance of that t)ortion onlv of the Council chosen b\' them. 
 
 4. 'Ihat tlie Council be reipiested to forward immeiliately to Dr. Pryor a 
 copy of this resolution; to determine with Dr. Pryor tiie earliest j)ossiI)Ie day 
 1i)r the re-asseml)ling ol' additional nu'iubers ; to procure I'njiu Dr. Pryor the 
 luimcs of the si.\ pen-^oUvS .^elected by him, and lo inibrni at once the Clerk of 
 the Church of the names obtained and the day determined on; and the Clerk 
 of the Church, upon the receipt of the same, is directed to communicate by 
 telegra])h with the j)ersous named. 
 
 i). That the Council be retpiested to defer any investigation until the result 
 of the foregoing concessions shall be known. 
 
 It was also resolced that in the event of Ki!V. S. ]\Iaivh being unable to 
 come the Deacons aTid Clerk choose another pei-son in hi.s stead. 
 
 Then adjourned. 
 
 On the 1:5th of August the Clerk wa^ put in possession of the names of the 
 jHTsons selected by Dr. Pry(u\ The name of Rev. A. S. limit was inunediately 
 returned to Dr. i'ryor, objected to on the ground of relationship; but Dr. 
 Pryor immediately explained that Mr. Hunt was not his relative, and his 
 name was accepted. Tluse six persons and Mi'. Mairli were then immediately 
 telegraphed to come tolliilifax with all despatch to sit on tlie Council. During 
 the day a telegram was received from Rev. Mr. Bill as ibUows, — " Utterly 
 impossible to leave home to night. Mr. M( Ivenzie not here." The assembling 
 »)f the Council i)revious (o the Convention about to be lieM at Wiluiot being, 
 under these circumstances, evidently impracticable, telegrams were .«eiit the 
 day Ibllowing (Aug. 14) to tin- st'veii brethren above alluded to. asking them 
 not to come. It was then arranged by the Council with Dr. Pryor that 
 Auf/usI idlh should be the day for the assembling ot the Council. A brief 
 Circular was sent to the seven new Councillors, inviting them to bi' present 
 on the 2!!tli of Auiriist, and the resolutions of Julv 12th and August 12th were 
 enclosed to them. 
 
 Eleven ol' those who were to compose tlu- Council assembled in dranvilh- 
 Htircl Church (m the 2!»th ot August, together with A. M. Wheelock, Es(p, 
 t)f Wilinot. It was state<l that Mr. Ambrose Dodge was not able to attend, 
 and that Mr. AVheelock was here to take his place. He was imme.liately 
 invited by the Church to take a seat in the Council, and the resolutions of 
 .lulv 12th and August 12th were then placed in his hands. 
 
 I'lie Couii(;il having organized, by clioosing Rev. C. Spurden, D.D., Presi- 
 dent, and R( v. W. S. McKen/ie, Seciv.tarv, the Church were asked if they 
 accepted tin Council as then organized, 'the Church replied in the afnrnia- 
 5 
 
66 
 
 tive, the Council to take as their basis of and authority for action the resolu- 
 tions oi July 1 2th and August 1 2th. 
 
 Tiic Council closed their lalwrs on the 5th of September, and a meeting of 
 the Cluurh was called on tiie evening of that (lay, at the recjuest of the 
 Council, to receive their Decision, the minutes of which n>eeting are as tbllows ; 
 
 September bth, 1867. 
 
 Church meeting called at request of the Council. Deacon Selden in the 
 chair. The brethren engaged in prayer and e.'thortation in the vestry till a 
 quarter Ix^fbre nine o'clock, when the Council recjuested their attendance in 
 the Church. 
 
 Ucv. Charles Randall read a hymn, after the singing of which the 11a}.v, 
 John Davis read the r22nd and liJ3rd Psalms, and liev. A. S. Hunt prayed^ 
 Rev. Dr. Spurden then read the Decision of the Council, whereof the tbllowing 
 is a coTjy : — 
 
 DECISION OF THE COUNCIL. 
 
 This Council having been called by the Church in this place in conjunction 
 with their late Pastor, to consider ccftain difHculties which have arisen be- 
 tween hini and them, and having given prolonged, patient, and pr;tyerful 
 attention to all the matters which have been placed before them, and to the 
 testimony and arguments in relation to these matters, deliver their judgment 
 herein, in nuinner and form as follows : 
 
 First Allegation. — " That Dr. Pry-.r is guilty of immorality and gross 
 impropriety in regard to Mi's. Minetta McMillan, and Mrs. Rachel Morgan, 
 (tbrmerly Dr. Pryor's servant girl)." 
 
 Resolved 1. — That in the opinion of this Council, IV. Pryor is not guilty of 
 immorality as charged in the Allegation : yet it is at the same time, the opinion 
 of this Council that Dr. Pryor has shewn great want of discretion in the 
 character of his visits to ]\Irs. McMillan. 
 
 Jlesolfcd 2. — That in the absence of all evidence in the case of Mrs. liiichel 
 Morgan, the Council dismiss said case. 
 
 Skcond Allp:oatiox. — " That Dr. Pryor is guilty of dishonest and 
 fraudulent dealings in conducting the affairs of Miss Ann Vass, (a member of 
 (iranville Street Haptist Church)." 
 
 Jiexolved 1. — That the Couneil acquit Dr. Pryor of dijihonest and fraudulent 
 intention in his d'-alings as the agent of Mi^s Vass : but they are of the 
 opinion that it was most unwise in him to undertake the management of her 
 accounts at all, and that he is chargealile with incompetency in keeping 
 accounts, and culpable negligence in not preserving vouchers. 
 
 TiiiJji). — The action of the Church. Viz. : 
 
 Whether the action of the Church relative to the charges before referred to, 
 and to Dr. Pryor, was such as should have Iwcn taken unde.- nil the eircum- 
 utances, and if not, why not, and what course the Church should have adopted. 
 
 The CiMHicil find that the Church hivs been accused of preciiiitancy in 
 virtually suspending Dr. Pryor from the exercise of his public duties on the 
 occurence of the unhappy ineident in Pleasant Street. 
 
 Resolved \. — That the Council is of opinion, that in view of the circinn- 
 stances forced \\\w\\ the ('hurcli, and for the consider'tticm of which tinu' could 
 not then be obtained, the IX-acons, whatever mistakes they may have commit- 
 ted in the discharge of the duties suldenly devolved upon them, ought not 
 to be charged with the want of ailection on account of such mistakes: it 
 oevertheless might have been better, if the Deacons had sought a personal 
 interview with Dr. Pryor, and cpiisyiUed with him in reference to the servicoe 
 *>f the Rj»proa*!h»ng Sabbath. 
 
 J 
 
67 
 
 The Council further find that the Church is rofrarded as blameable for 
 having refused to call a Council at an earlier period in the history of this 
 whole case. 
 
 Resolved — That the Council are not able to decide upon this particular 
 <luestion. But in relation to the whole matter of calling a Council in critical 
 eases of a difHcult nature between Pastor and people, we are of oj)inion that for 
 the interests of all parties concerned, an advisory Council will generally bo 
 found desirable, and that such a procedure is in harmony with the practice of 
 the Churches in these Provinces. 
 
 liexolceil — That in relation to the suspension of Dr. Pryor on the charge of 
 fraudulent transactions in the affaii-s of Miss Viuss, the Council is of opinion, after 
 a careful examination of tlie wliolc matter, in relation to which the Council has 
 already delivered its decision, that it would be advisable for the Church to 
 reconsider their action thereon. 
 
 Such is the judgment on all the above points at which this Council has 
 arrived. They would have desired to add a few sentences, embodying thoughts 
 and counsels, suggested by the matters which have come before tlicni. The 
 time at their disposal however forbids this. They may utter somewhat in tlie 
 above way, but cannot write anything further. They can only commend the 
 late PiLStor of this Churdi, with its Deacons and members to the care and 
 guidance of the great Head of the Ciuirch. May He counsel, direct, and 
 dispose them to all that is well pleasing in His sight, anti beneficial to His 
 cause. May He render the efforts of the Council which is now about to be 
 dis.solved conducive to these great ends. May He at last bring ys all to the 
 world of purity, and rest. The members of this Council will not then regret 
 the toil which tliey have at this time been led to devote to tiu' cause of Ciirist 
 in this place, and in Heaven we shall all rejoice together in the result of our 
 common laboi-s, and in the salvation of our common Loixl. 
 
 (Signed.) Charles Si-urden, Frcdericton, N. B., President. 
 
 (iEOU(JE AiiMSTRONG, Bridgetown, N. S., Secretary, 
 John* Davis, Chiirlottetown. P. E. I. 
 I. E. BiM., St. John, N. B. 
 A. S. Hunt, Cornwallis, N. S. 
 Charles Randall, Weymouth, N. S. 
 , Stei'uen March, Brid^ewater, N. S. 
 
 T. R. Pattillo, LiviTiM>ol, N. S. 
 James E. Rand, Cornwallis, N. S. 
 W. Faulkner, Tnuo, N. S. 
 AiJEL M. Wheelock, Wilmot, N- S. 
 
 Halifax, September 5th, 1867. 
 
 Deacon Johnston moved, and Deacon Selden seconded, that a vote of 
 thanks be passed to the Council for their labors liestowcd in investigating the 
 matters brought before them. The resolution was put and several bnrthren 
 voted in the negative, on the ground that they would, by voting for the 
 motion, compromise themselves in regard to the Decision of the Council ; but 
 it having been explained that the motion was simply to thank the Council 
 for their labors and not to accejit in any way their decision, the motion was 
 again put, and carried unanimously. 
 
 Rev. T. E. Bill and Rev. .1. Davis adilressed the meeting. Tlie President 
 of the Council made some remarks in regard to certain jioints in the evidence. 
 
 The meeting closed by the singing of the doxology, and the benediction by 
 Dr. Spurden. 
 
 During the above meeting the Clerk of the Church a,sked the Council 
 whether their minutes of evitlence and proceedings would be handed to the 
 Church with their decision ; to which question no definite reply wa.s then given. 
 
68 
 
 P^ 
 
 'i^: 
 
 The Clerk enquired next day of Dr. Spurden whether their minutes of 
 evidence and proc'eedinjrs wouUl not be left with the Church, and was yiven 
 to undei-stand that they would be. 
 
 The next day the Clerk addressed the following note to the Secretary of 
 the Council: — 
 
 Halifax, September 7th, 18C7. 
 
 Rev. and Dkau Sir, — I find, in looking over my papers, that there are 
 several papei"s put in by the Church which I have not got back. Among 
 them are Deacon Johnston's letter of August 29th ; a resolution put in first 
 day of your meeting ; and some others. 
 
 I suppose you have them. If so, would you be good enough to leave them 
 with mc, or inform me where I can get them. 
 
 Dr. Spurden informed me that the minutes of Council would be left with 
 mc witii the evidence taken by the Secretaries. I would be greatly obliged 
 if you woiild leave these latter with the papei-s fii-st mentioned where I may 
 
 get them. 
 
 Rev. Geo. Armstrong, Sec'y., ^c. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 B. H. Eaton. 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 Halifax, September 1th, 18G7. 
 
 My Dear Sir, — I sent you resolutions of tlie Church by . I 
 
 now forward Deacon Johnston's letter of the 2!)th August. The minutes of 
 Council, as I undei'stand the: matt(!r, belong to the Council, and are not 
 (lesigned for any other body. 
 
 Neither tlie Ciiairman nor the meeting gave me any direction to dehver 
 them to the Church or its rei)resentatives. 
 
 As for the evidence, each member took it for himself, and of course is 
 entitled to retain it. No one was appointtul to do it officially. j\Iy own 
 notes of evidence are considerably full ; they were, however, written very 
 hastily, and are in no condition to b(! seen except to compare with those 
 taken by members of Council. The letter J now enclose could not bi; found 
 
 when called ; I am happy to supply it now. So far as I know, this 
 
 is tlie only document belonging to you or tlie Church whicli I have in my 
 possession. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 B. II. Eaton, Esq. George Armstrong. 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 Halifax, September 9th, 1867. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, — 1 beg leave to enclose an extract from Crowell's 
 Church Directory, by whidi you will see clearly what coui-se that eminent 
 authority consider a Council should take in regard to their minutes. Of 
 course 1 cannot repeat my request in regard to the evidence, seeing it waa 
 not taken officially. As to the minutes of Council, it is now entirely for you 
 to say whether you will adopt the practice as laid down by Crowell. All the 
 Church has received is tiie " Decision of the Council." They are, therefore, 
 in this position. They read your decision, it may or may not differ from 
 what they exi)ectcd. If it does so differ, they wish to know by what ste[)9 
 you arrived at it, so that they may be able to decide conscientiously whether 
 they ought to abide by it or not. I may say that if you wish to preserve the 
 minutes I would undertake to return them to you in a few days. Please 
 inform me what is your pleasure. 
 
 Yours trul), 
 
 Rev. George Armstrong. B. II. Eaton. 
 
 b 
 tl 
 c 
 
 si 
 c 
 
69 
 
 
 EXTRACT REFERRED TO. 
 
 " If the business be to investij^ato cliar;ios against a minister, a record should 
 be kept of all the evidence and of the decision of the Council. In every ease 
 the doin;j;s of the Council, si<;ned by the Moderator and Clerk, should be 
 entered on the records of the Church by whose vote it was convened. A 
 similar eoni-se would be proper in case of a Council gonvened to assist in 
 constituting a Church. 
 
 R E P L Y. 
 
 Dartmouth, Night, September dth, 18G7. 
 
 My Dear Sir, — I received your note late this evening, mkI have only a 
 short time to transcribe the minutes of the two l;u«t meetings <n' Council. 
 
 I see you are desirous of seeing the minutes, and as it seems ivasonable that 
 the Churcli should have a vopy of tiiem, I forward you the only copy I have. 
 I will be obliged, therefore, if, as you promise, you will return them to me in 
 a lew days, or as soon as you conveniently <'an. I do not, in toto, accept 
 Crowell's ch)ctrines; but I see nothing unreascmable in the wish to have 
 the minutes of Council, though I do not see that tiiey will supply, with every 
 distinct step taken in forming the decision arrived at by the Council. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 B. II. P^ATON, Esq., Halifax. George Armstrong. 
 
 The following note completes this correspondence : — 
 
 Halifax, September llth, 18'67. 
 
 Rev. AND Dear Sir, — I received the minutes, and have taken a copy of 
 them. Plea>ie accept my thanks lor them, I now return them to you, and 
 hope you will receive them all right. 
 
 Yours, &e.. 
 
 Rev. George Armstrong. li. II. Eaton. 
 
 MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL. 
 
 FIRST SESSION. 
 
 Hnlifax, Aitr/tist 20, 1807. 
 
 An Ecclesiiistical Coimcil, mutually chosen by the Granville Street Baptist 
 Church of Halifax, N. S., and the Rev. John Pryor, D.D., and called by the 
 said Church, conveiu'd to-dav in the meetin<r-house of the Granville Jr'treet 
 Baptist Church, at 11 o'ch)ck, A. M. 
 
 The Council was organized by choosing Rev. C. Sjnuxlen, D.I)., Moderator, 
 and Rev. W. S. McKcnzie, Clerk. The Clerk, with the approval of the 
 Council, chose Rev. (iecjrge Armstrong to assist him in his duties. 
 
 The Scrij)tures were read, and prayer oili'red by the Moderator. 
 
 The rec<n'ds of the Church relating to the call of this Council were then 
 read, stating the olyect to be to consider for investigation and iuljudicatioii — 
 
 1. The charges of immoralily, and all testimony having reference thereto, 
 which has been or may hereafter be adduced. 
 
 2. The charges of a jjccuniary character in the accounts with Miss Vass. 
 
 3. The action taken by the Church in reference to each of the above 
 cases. 
 
 And to report to the ('hurch their opinion in what degree any, and which, 
 of the charges alleged against Dr. Pryor, have been substantiated before 
 them ; and whether tht^ action of the Church relative thereto, and to Dr. 
 Pryor, was such as shouM have been t;iken under all the circumstances; .and 
 if not, why not ; and what course the Church should have adopted 
 

 70 
 
 Tlie credentials of Delegates were presented, showing the following 
 brethren to be duly entered as inembei's of the Couiu il, viz : — 
 
 Rev. C. Spurden, Fredericton, N. B. 
 Rev. J. Davis, Charlottetown, P. E. I. 
 Rev. C. Randall, Weymouth, N. S. 
 Rev. S. March, Bridgewatcr, N. S. 
 Bro. T. II. Tatillo, Liverpool, N. S. 
 Bro. Win. Faulkner, Truro, N. S. 
 Rev. I. E. Bill, St. John, N. B. 
 Rev. W. S. McKcnzie, St. John, N. B. 
 Rev. George Armstrong, Bridgetown, N. S. 
 Rev. A. S. Hunt, Cornwallis, N. S. 
 Bro. James E. Rand, Cornwallis, N. S. 
 Bro. A. M. Wheelock, AVilmot, N. S. 
 
 Tlie Council then requested of each party to declare whether the Council, 
 as now organized, is accepted. Both parties replied affirmatively : where- 
 upon the Council went into a private session, and agreed upon the following 
 points : — 
 
 1. That the Moderator decide general questions of order. 
 
 2. That if any special difficulties arise, one, and only one, representative 
 on each side be allowed to plead ■pro and con. 
 
 3. That anything Dr. I'ryor has to say be heard without interruption. 
 
 5. That the Council first hear allegations against Dr. Pryor, and that 
 afterwards speeches and j)leadings be heard, if deemed necessary. 
 
 5. That the chairman can require persons not members of the Council to 
 retire when he thinks it necessary. 
 
 C. That when personal evidence cannot be obtained, the Council shall 
 decide whether or not it will accept documentary evidence. 
 
 Closed with prayer by Rev. I. E. Bill, to meet again at 2^ o'clock, P.M. 
 
 SECOND SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, August 29, 1867. 
 
 The Council re-a.«sembled at 2i o'clock, P. M., the Moderator in the chair. 
 Prayer w;is offered by Rev. Geo. Armstrong. The Council then called for 
 tlie allegations against Dr. Pryor, to be followed by the testimony thereon. 
 
 The Church, through its Ct)mmittee, offered the following as tiie first : 
 
 First Allkgatiox. — " Tiiat Dr. Pryor is guilty of inuuorality and gross 
 impropriety of conduct in regard to ]\Ii*s. Minetta McMillan and Mrs. Rachel 
 Morgan, (formerly Dr. Pryor's servant girl.") 
 
 Tiie Council then went into an e.xaiuination of witnesses presented by the 
 Church on the above charge. 
 
 Mr. James Baxter was called in and gave his testimony, as elicited by the 
 Church, and under a cross-exiuninatlon by the defendant and by membiirs of 
 the Council. 
 
 Adjourned at G o'clock, P. M. with prjiyer by Rev. C. Randall, to meet at 
 7^ o'clock, P. M. 
 
 THIRD SESSION. 
 
 Au<just 29, 1867. 
 
 The Council convened again at 7^ P. M., with Moderator in the chair. 
 Opened with prayer by Rev. A. S. Hunt. 
 
 jMi"s. Barbara A. Baxter, wife of Mr. James Baxter, gave in her testimony 
 on the first allegation, as elicited by the Church and under a cross-examina- 
 tion by defendant and Council. 
 
 Also James INIc Donald, Policeman for two years in the city of Halifax, pre- 
 Bontcd his testimony, followed by cross-examinatioa. 
 
71 
 
 The Council then wont into a private session. an<l voted to ajipoint a f'oni- 
 mittee of three of their niim!)er, to take and report the evicUiice of Mrw. 
 Maxner, who, on account of sieknesss, cannot attt'nd the session of the Coun- 
 cil : Committee to consist of Revds. John Davis, Geo. Armstioii;; and C. 
 Randall. Dr. Pryor to take a iriend witii him to the cxaminntiou if he 
 ple;i.st's, and the Church a])point a representative. 
 
 Adjourned at (paarter before 1 1 o'clock, P. M., to meet the next morning 
 at S)| A. M. Clu.sing prayer by llev. 8. March. 
 
 FOURTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, August 30, 1867. 
 
 The Council met this morninff at ni^ o'clock, the Moderator in the chair. 
 Openinji prayer by Rev. J. Davis. Minutes of the previous session read and 
 approved. 
 
 Air. Lewis Christian, a Policeman of Halifax, pave his testimonv before the 
 Council, followed with a cross-examination. I\Ir. Jolin Ho^an, ^Ir. Charles 
 Twinin^f, Mr. JA'wis llutt (a Police Ser<feant), and Dr. Jotham Si^wall, also 
 testihed ajjainst Dr. Pryor, and were cross-examined. 
 
 The Council tlieu adjourned, witli i)rayer by Rev. W. 8. McKenzie, to 
 meet again at 4 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 FIFTH SESSION. 
 
 I fall/ax, Anijmt 30, 1867. 
 The Council, owing to delay caused by the examination conducted by the 
 Special Couuuittee appointed on the evidence of Mrs. Maxner, convened 
 again at quarter before 5, P.M. Prayer by Bro. T. R. Pattillo. The testimony 
 taken from Mrs. IMa.xner at her resideuc-e, was ])resented l)y Rev. J. Davis. 
 
 Ml'. .lames II. Purdy was also examined, and his Usstimony cross-examined 
 by the Council and defendant. 
 
 Adjourned at (i^ o'clock, P. M., with prayer bv Rev. I. E. Rill, to meet at 
 7^ o'clock, P. M. 
 
 SIXTH SESSION. 
 
 llnlijax. Auffust 30, ISC?. 
 
 Tiie Council met again this evening at 7^ o'clock. The session was opened 
 with prayer by Bro. A. M. Wiieelock. Minutes of the i)revious meeting read 
 and a[)prove(l. 
 
 j\Ir. .Fohn Forbes gave in his (estimony, and was cross-examined. Mr. 
 Arciiiljald Morton, and ]\Irs. Emma Purdy, wife of James II. Purdy, also ren- 
 dered testimony before the Coum-il. Other witnesses not being availal)le for 
 this se.«sion, the Council closed its open session and went into a private 
 session. 
 
 It was voted to receive all the testimony against and f(jr Dr. Pryor on the 
 first charge, together with any pleas by either party on that charge, before 
 passing to tiie second allegation. 
 
 Adjourned, with prayer by Bro. James E. Rand, to meet to-morrow morn- 
 ing at !)A o'clock. 
 
 SEVENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, August 31, 1867. 
 
 The Council opened its seventh session this morning at 9.} o'clock, with 
 prayer by the Moderat.)r, Rev. C. Sj)urden, D. D. The minutes of tiie pre- 
 vious meeting were read and approved. 
 
 The Council resumed the examination of witnesses presented by the Church. 
 
 I\Ir. Henry Wisdom, carpenter, residing at Dartmouth, testified. Mrs. 
 Morris Manning, also Mrs, Catherine Evans, testified. 
 
72 
 
 Tlic Cliurdi thon made application totlio Conncil for liberty to present souk; 
 (loeiimeiitary evidenee from Miss Marjiaret Uobinsoii, deposi'd betijie a eom- 
 mittee of the Cliiireli, iKit in the presence of Dr. I'ryor, iait subsi'tpiently, 
 tt>j^etlier with the rest of tlie testimony, re;ul to Dr. Pryor. The Council then 
 listened to arj;ument for and aj^ainst the reception <»f the testimony, where- 
 upon the Council wt-nt into a private session to delilxM'ati' upon the above. 
 The Council unanimously decided not to receive the documentary evidence 
 deposed before the eonunmittee of the Church by Miss Marj^aret Robinson. 
 
 The testimony (m the case of Mrs. ]\IcMIllan beinjj; closi-d, lln' ('ouucil 
 called for the testimony rchitive to the e;i.se ot jNIrs. Rachel Mortrau. tbiuierly 
 Dr. Pryor's servant girl. On this count in the alkij^ation, Mr. 15. II. Katon, 
 on behalf of the Church, ))resented written statements made l)y \)v. IVyor 
 before tiie conunittee of tiie Church. This closed the testimonv on the case 
 of jNIi-s. Rachel JVIorgan. 
 
 The Ciinrch at this st:i;^e requested the Council to di'cide on either of tluf 
 two foUowinj^ points : Tliat t!ie Church be jiermitted to brin;^' on tiie case of 
 
 as a separate and third count in the first allegation ; or tlint in case 
 
 Dr. Pryor presents evidence c»f character, they — ihe Church — be;, owed to 
 briny: this and other cases, if ncccssarv, as rebuttin<j testimonv. 
 
 The Council went into a private session on the above request. Tll(^ follow- 
 ing was the decision of the Coun<'d : — That the case of * * * l)c not 
 investigated by this Council : And wluMcas testinu)ny to charactei' cannot 
 affect the facts of present conduct ; therefore, Itetiolveil, Tliat the Council 
 decline to receive testimony or evidence as to past character in definee. 
 
 At this stage, Dr. Pryor recpiested the Council to record on their minutes, 
 that while he regretted exceedingly to have the name of * * * revived 
 in connection with nny slanderous rep(jrts relating to himself yet he was 
 willinir to withdraw all objeijtions to an investijjiation of the case of . 
 
 Adjourned, witli prayer by Rev. J. Davis, to meet in private session, from 
 2| to' ;3 o'clock, ]\ M. 
 
 EIGHTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, Augmt .31, 18()". 
 
 The Coinicil opencul a private session at 2..30 o'clock, P.M., with j)raver by 
 Kev. Georiic Armstron<r. 
 
 The Council weijrhed the objections urjjed in the mornin<i ajjainst their 
 
 decision relative to the case of , and tlu^ character of the deienc(! to 
 
 be admitted. It was voted to rescind the resolutions passed in the private 
 
 session in the morning, relative to ■ and the plea of defence, and 
 
 that the following be adopted instead : — 
 
 1. iit'.s-o/m/. That the case of » * * 
 Council as a part of the allegation. 
 
 2. Resolrcfi, That Dr. Pryor has a clear right to adopt any line of defence 
 he may deem proper. 
 
 3. Resolved, That if the Clmreh wish any testimony of a character adverse 
 to the line of <lefc'nce. tlie t'ouncil reserve to themselves the right to decide 
 to what e.\tent they will hear it. 
 
 When in open meeting of tlie Coinicil the .above resolutions were presented, 
 the Church jiut in the following recpiest, viz : — 
 
 Tiiat if Dr. Pryor adduce evidence in favor of his past character, the Church 
 be permitted to call upon to rebut the same. 
 
 
 be not investigated by this 
 
 In a private session upon the above, the Council gave the following deci- 
 
4 
 
 73 
 
 sion, viz : Tlio Council docidc to tlcfor the reply to tlmt request until after the 
 dei'cnce lias been heard. 
 
 This decision was accepted by the Church. Tlie Council in open seesion 
 called then for tesliniony in tlie detence. Dr. I'ryor was cidU'd upon by Dr. 
 Crawley to make statements and to present written teiitimonials in his own 
 beiialf. 
 
 Dr. Crawley also came before the (Jouncil with statements and testimonials 
 In defence of Dr. Pryor, after whicli Dr. IVyor resumed his own delence bel()re 
 the Council witii verbal and written testimony. 
 
 Adjourned at (i o'clock, 1*. M., witli j)rayer by Rev. A. S. Hunt, to meet 
 next Monday morning, Sej)temi)er 2, at \)i o'clock. 
 
 NINTH SESSION. 
 
 Iltilijar, Sept. 2, 1867. 
 
 The Council convened tor its ninth session this mornin;f at !)} o'clock. 
 Prayer by Rev. C. Randall. Minuti's of the previous session reail and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 Tlie Church placed belbre the Council its second charge, which reads aij 
 follows : — 
 
 That Dr. Prvor is guilty of dishonest and fraudulent dealings in conducting 
 the ad'alrs of JNIiss Ann Vass, a nuunber of Granville St. Church. 
 
 The charge was laid on the table. 
 
 Dr. Prvor resumed his defence. Cross-examined by the Church through !Mr. 
 Rand. The cross-examination was interrupted by a njotiou to adjourn to 2^ 
 P.M. Closed with prayer by Rev. S. JMarch. 
 
 NoTK. — Tiie Church requested the allegations against themselves to be laid 
 before the Council an soon as convenient. 
 
 TENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, Sept. 2, 1807. 
 
 The Coimcil re-assombled at 2} P.^I. Prayer by Rev. W. S. McKenzie. 
 Mintiti's of the previous s(!ssion read and approved, after adding the above nnte. 
 
 A letter was read by the Moderator froin Rev. W. S. McKenzie. connnunl- 
 cating to the C!oun<Ml, and the ])arties before the Council, his intention to 
 resign his seat on Wednesday morning next (in case the Council is still in 
 session) owing to obligations of an hn])erative luiture. 
 
 Cross-i'xamination of Dr. Pryor. condu(!ted l)y ^Ir. Rand, was resumed. 
 
 Mi-s. Minetta IMcMIllau came before the Council and testified by ansv.ering 
 a single qu(!stit)n put by the defence. Cross-examined by Mr. Eaton. iNfrs. Dr. 
 Pryor testified, and was ci'oss-exaniined by Mr. Ea^«n. Also Mi's. Judge 
 Johnston testified. 
 
 Jn jn-Ivate session at 10 minutes before (J P..M, the Council passed unani- 
 mously tlie following : — 
 
 The Council decide, that for weighty reas(jns which it is not necessary to 
 
 mention, they cannot entertain the <[uestion in relation to in any 
 
 shape. 
 
 Closed with prayer by Rev. J. Davis, to meet again at 7^ o'clock, P.M. 
 
 ELEVENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, Sept. 2, 18G7. 
 
 The Council convened at 7;^ o't-lock, P.M. Opened with prayer by Bro. 
 Wheelock. Minutes of the jirevious meeting reail and approved IMrs. 
 Mary Crichton testified and cross-examined : also Mrs Margaret Pattei-son, 
 and cross-examined. Judg(! Johnston testified. 
 
 In a private sessson the flillowliig decision was jmmounced : — 
 
 As the Council has now receiveil the testimony from both parties relative 
 
 I 
 
74 
 
 to tho fir-it allegation : Rnsofne/l, Tiiat wo disposo with pK>aclni<;s nii oithor 
 siilo tor tlio prc'si'ut, and proceed to a consideration ol" the second allegation, 
 which reads thus : — 
 
 2. " That Dr. I'ryor is guilty of dishonest and fraudulent dealings in con- 
 ducting the affairs ot Miss Ann Vass, a member of Granville St. IJaptist 
 Church. 
 
 Mr. (leorge Fraser wivs called to testify, presenting a, report embodying the 
 results of an eicamination conchuited by a committee ajjpointed by the Church. 
 Mr. Fraser then read a report made up e£ parte, nubsecpient to the suspension 
 of Dr. Pryor from Church fellowshij), but occasioned by Dr. IVyor's delence 
 against charges contained in the first report mentioned above. 'J'his report 
 was put before the Council under a protest from the defence. 
 
 Adjourned at 10\ c'clock,with prayer bv Kev. 1. E. Bill, to meet again at 
 y^ o'clock. 
 
 TWELFTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, Sept. 3, 1867. 
 
 Tho Council re-fissembled at 9^ o'clock, A.M. Prayer by Rev. C. Spurden. 
 Minute-i read and approved. 
 
 Mr. Fraser i)lacod boforc! the Council statements respecting the several items 
 of discrepancies in Dr. Pryor's account with Miss Va»s. Cross-examined by 
 Judge Johnston. Dr. Pryor Inid upon the table his allegntions against the 
 Ciuirch. The Council then went into a private session. Closed with i)rayer 
 by Rev. Geo. Armstrong. 
 
 [The following arc Dr. Pryor's allegation s, referred to above : — 
 
 1. That the Church showed an unjust, injurious, and uncharitable preci- 
 pitancy in excluding tlie Pastor from his pulpit. 
 
 2. That they became the accusers instead of the defenders of their Pastor, 
 and c(iii<lucted the prosecution in a suspicious and unchristian temper, ex- 
 aniimnl witnesses in the absence of Dr. Pryor, and manifested great partiality 
 and prejudiced feelings against Dr. Pryor. 
 
 3. Tiiat they decided tin; ^McMillan case hastily, without the nec((ssary 
 examination of the evidence, ami induced the adoption of their resolution on 
 certain Jissurances, which were atlorwards violated. 
 
 4. That they were prepared to have condemned Dr. Pryor of fraud in the 
 Vass ease on the same evening that the report was introduced, — althougli the 
 report did not charge fraud, — and were only prevented by want of time and 
 the determined opposition of a few of Dr. Pryor's friends. 
 
 5. That they failed in the duty they owed their Pastor, his friends and 
 relatives in the Church, the denomination, and the cause of religion, in not 
 calling a Council in the first instance, lint, on the contrary, a C(mncil agreed 
 U{)on by tiie Deacons and Dr. Pryor, before the Church had taken any action, 
 was not called in violation of that agreement, by reason of the opposition 
 existing in the Church to the calling of a Council. 
 
 6. That after the McMillan case was decided they refused a Council on 
 the Va.ss case, and justified that refusal on a pretence false, unjust, and 
 dishonorable. 
 
 7. Tiiat they liaTC since attempted to excuse their dereliction of duty in 
 relati(jn to the calling of a Council by a disingenuous perversion of the truth, 
 and have made tlie Ciiurcli books the instrument of perpetrating the falsehood. 
 
 8. That throughout their proceedings they manifested disregard to the 
 just rights and dearest interests of their Pastor; and needlessly outraged the 
 feelings of many members of the Church, his relatives and friends, and drove 
 them into secession from the Church. 
 
 .',i,h 
 
 mi 
 
76 
 
 11 or 
 l)n- 
 
 at 
 
 l)V 
 
 Ivcr 
 
 Z' 
 
 .',t.k 
 
 9. Tliat the final suspension from Cliiireh connoetidn of Dr. Pryor, as a 
 nieinl)er of the Church, was unwarranted by tlit^ evidenei- ; and was a needU-ss 
 ex-reise of authority, beside« Iminj; wantonly eruel in retainin;^ him under the 
 power of tlie CluuTh, while deprived of its privileges, ami was witiiout war- 
 rant in reason or practice.] 
 
 THIRTEENTH SESSION. 
 
 Hull/ax, Srpt. 3, 1867. 
 
 The Council convened at 2^ o'clock. Trayer by Rev. A. S. Hunt. Miimtes 
 read an<l approved. 
 
 Miss Ann Vap« testified. Cross-examined by Ju<l{;;e Johivton. Mr. Ritchie 
 gave testimony under examination by .Fudjfe Johnston. Mr. II. Y. Clarke 
 testified. J. C. :\I(.ore testified. Dr. McN. Parker testified. Mi-s. Sarah 
 Howard testified. With th(!se doseil the evidence in support of the second 
 alle<iation. The defence first brought forward J)r. Pryor to make a statement 
 of iiis connection with the aflaii-s of Miss Vass. 
 
 Adjourned, with prayer by Rev. C. llandall. 
 
 FOURTEENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, Sept. 3, 1867. 
 
 Tiie Council convened for its evening session at 7^ o'clock. Prayer by Rev. 
 S.March. Minutes of the j)reviou8 session read and approved. 
 
 The examination of J)r. Pryor retiuiiied. Cross-examined by Mr. B. H. 
 Eaton. Mr. Fraser ajfain calle(l upon to jjive testimony. Profes.sor DeMill 
 read to tlie Council a document explaininji; the discrepancies in Dr. Prvor's 
 accounts with Miss Vass. Judj;e Johnston testified. Tliis closed the exanii- 
 natiini in the defence. 
 
 A ))rivate session was held, which was adjourned, with prayer by Ilov. C. 
 Spurden, D.D., to meet Wednesday mornini^ at 9^ o'clock. 
 
 FIFTEENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax, Sept. 4, 1867. 
 
 The Council convened at 9^ o'clock, A.M. Prayer by Rev. C. Spurden, 
 D.D. The Rev. (icor^re Armstron;j; was appointed Secretary instead of Rev. 
 Mr. .McKenzie, who is ol)li<xcd to leave for St. John. 
 
 The Council recpiests Dr. Pryor to withdraw the char<:;es ajrainst the 
 Church, that it may investiifate the action of tlie Church, acconling to the 
 terms of the fbllowinjr resolution, viz : — " Whether the action of the Church 
 relative to these events, an<l to Dr. Pryor, was such as should have been taken 
 mul(T all the circumstances ; and if not, why not ; and what course the Church 
 should have adopted." 
 
 AVhereupon said charges were withdrawn by Judge Johnston, on behalf of 
 Dr. Pryor. T. II. Rand protests on behalf of the Church against this with- 
 drawal, on the ground that such course is a reversal of the mode of procedure 
 adopted towards the Church. 
 
 In private session, the Council docide<l that evidence in reports of Com- 
 mittees, and on which the action of the Church proceeded, be not now read, 
 but put in. 
 
 The chairman decides that the Clerk of the Church proceed to read a 
 statement prepared July .31, 18G7, as to the mode in which evidence was taken 
 by the Committee. Judge Johnston protests against the decision. Records 
 as to the liotion of the Church at several meetings, were read by the Clerk of 
 the Church, B. II. Eaton. 
 
 Adjourned, with prayer by Rev. J. Davis, 
 
76 
 
 SIXTEENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax Si'pt. 4, 1867 
 
 Council met at 2^ o'clock I*. M. Pniycr by Rev. Mr. Bill. Minutes of 
 last nici'tin;:; rcid ;inil ;ippn»vcii. 1$. II. hiiton cli-rk oftlic Cliurcli rcsiinicd 
 readiii"^ record of proceediiii^s eonnecti'd with tlie action ol" tlie Cliurcli, aj< 
 res[)ects the calhnjf ol'a Council as reconnnended l)y tiic Association. 
 
 Several docuineiit-s were read to Council l)y the clerk of the Church. 
 
 Dr. I'arker, niaile, ex|)lanations as re;,Mrds the aifreeinent conn! to at the 
 Deacons nieetinj^, May Hth, 1H()7, to move t<)r a C'ouneil. 
 
 Juil^je Johnston, also made statements explanatory as n'spect.s tlie callinf^of 
 a Council, to consider each char;;e a;j;ainst Dr. I'ryor, and made otiier state- 
 ments as to wiiat occurred at tiie meetings of the Church. Judjie Johnston 
 wiis cross-examined hy 15. II. Eaton. 
 
 Questions put to Judj;e Johnston by representatives of the Church. " Have 
 tho.se members of this Council wlio were invitcul by Dr. Pryor, l)een enter- 
 tained duriu;;' its sittinjj;s, at the houses of Dr I'ryor, Prof IK^Mill and .Judge 
 Johnston'.''" "Have you detailed to tlie membei's of this Council tlie state- 
 ments which you have now made ?" .ludge Johnston deiMnin;f these tpiestions 
 impertinent, declined to answer them. Explanations were made by Dr. 
 Parker and Messi-s. IJeckwith, Rand, and Selden. 
 
 T. II. Rand made further statements, explanatory as to the mode of taking 
 evidence in the absence of Dr. Pryor. Mr. R. M. King, gave explanations on 
 matters connected with his own action, and that of tiie Church. 
 
 Mr. Alex. Robinson, and T. S. DeWolf made some remarks. 
 
 Adjourned with prayer, by Pro. Hunt. 
 
 SEVENTEENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax Sept. 4, 1867. 
 
 Council met at 7^^ o'clock P. M. Prayer by the Ri'v. Geo. Armstrong. 
 Minutesof last meeting reatl and approved. Alderman Ackhurst madeexj)la- 
 nations respecting his feelings towai'ds Dr. Pryor, his connection witli anotiier 
 Church, and his return to (Jranville Street Cimrch. Rev. Dr. Crawley as 
 the friend and advocate of Dr Pryor, read a long address in his behalf. U. H. 
 Eaton then addressed the Council in behalf of the Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crawley resumed his address in further defence of Dr. Pryor. 
 
 T. H. Rand in behalf of the Church, addressed the Council. 
 
 Adjourned with prayer by Rev. 8. March. 
 
 EIGHTEENTH SESSION. 
 
 Halifax Sept. 5, 9 J o'clock A. M. 
 Prayer by Rev. S. March. Minutes of the last meeting read and approved. 
 The Conned in private session, went into consideration of the evidence brought 
 to sustain the 1st allegation against Dr. Pryor. 
 
 The resolutions respecting the MtiMillan and Racheal Morgan cases were 
 pas.sed iniaminously (hiring this sessi(m. 
 
 Adjourned with prayer by I3ro. A. M. Wheelock. 
 
 NINETEENTH SESSION, 
 
 Sept. 5, 2^ o'clock P. M. 1867. 
 Prayers by Rev. J. Davis. Minutes of bust meeting read and approved. 
 The Council proceeded to consider the second allegation against Dr. Pryor, 
 and unamimously passed the decision, which in this case was finally reported 
 to tlie Church. 
 
 Tiie Council then considered the action of the Church, relative to the events 
 referred to, and to Dr. Pryor, and formed their judgment on the points i)re- 
 
 To 
 
 ..JM. 
 
77 
 
 Is of 
 lined 
 
 |l, UK 
 
 the 
 
 lii^'of 
 Itate- 
 iLstun 
 
 Jl.ivo 
 Jiitcr- 
 
 lll(|<re 
 
 ftiite- 
 
 lions 
 
 J)r. 
 
 scntcid. The Council reviewed its decision on every point without materially 
 cliiin;;in;^ it in substan e or form. 
 
 Seeretary (lirccted to prepan; a copy of the decision for presentation to the 
 Churcli, at the evenin;^ lueetiu};. 
 
 Ailjourned witii prayer by Kev. I. E. Bill. 
 
 TWENTIETH SESSION. 
 
 Sept. .0, 7 J o'clod: P. M 
 Decision of Council was transcribed, and about Si o'clock presented to tlio 
 Clinrch by the Kev. C. S|)urden, D.l)., a preliminary devotional i-t'rvice. in 
 which Kevds. C. Randall, J. Davis, and A. S. Hunt, participated, having 
 
 oeen 
 
 hehi. 
 
 The I'residtsnt of Council fjave explanations on some points rceferred to in 
 in the decision read liy him to the Clnin-h. Sliort addresses were made by 
 the Revs. J. l^avia and I. E. Hill. The doxolo;iy was suno;, and thu Council 
 
 adjourned, bine du 
 
 Gkoiujk Akmstuoxo, Secretary. 
 
 
 The next Church meeting was held September 11th, the minutes of which 
 are as follows : — 
 
 Seplemhcr l\lh, 1807. 
 
 Church meeting. Deacon Selden in the chair. Minutes of three previous 
 meetings read and approved. 
 
 It was moved by JJcac^on Beckwith, and seconded by Bro. DeWolf, and 
 Jtesolvctl, That Deacons Nutting and I'arkei-, and brethren Fr;Lser, Rand ar.d 
 the Clerk, be a Conunittce to examine minutes of Council and evich-nce, in 
 order to gather any information wliich might assist the Church in carrying 
 out tiie recomm('nd;iti(m of tlu; Council. 
 
 Halifax, Monday, Sept. \Glh, 18(1 7. 
 
 To TiiK Pastor and Deacox.s ov CJuanvillk St. Baptist Ciiukcii, 
 IIax-ifax. 
 
 1 learned with regret this morning, from Mr. Selden, that no notice for a 
 Church meeting during the present week, had been given. It is obviously the 
 duty of the Church to act promptly, on tiie recounnendation of the Coinicil, 
 to reconsider the vote of suspension. The injustice of delay to Dr. Pryor and 
 his friends is ])alpal)le ; and delay cannot imj)rove, but must deteriorate, the 
 position of the Church in the matter. 
 
 In my opinion, it is the duty and interest of the Church, acting in deference 
 to the Council, to rescind that vote ; and the more promptly this is done the 
 more graceful the act will be. If, unhapjjily, the majority are determined to 
 despise the recommendation, it is in tiicu- power to do so, but they have no 
 right to keep Dr. Pryor in suspense. It will be unjust, uncharitaljie, and 
 mmianly to do so. Dr. Pryor desires to have his position defined. I desire 
 lo be able to define mine — others may be like me in that respect. 
 
 I hope the appointment of a committee on Friday hist will not be made an 
 (ixcuse for delay. It surely would be a most uncandid and unworthy cxrjnse. 
 
 I request that a meeting of the wjiole Church be called to consider the 
 recounnendation of tlse Council, on Friday next, — notice to be given at the 
 Wednesday evening meeting, and personally to such as are not then present. 
 I expect to leave town on the Circuit on the Friday after, and I deem it 
 important that I should be present. 
 
 I am, yours very obediently, 
 
 J. \V. JoiINSTON- 
 
 1 beg to be informed in season of the decision to call a Church meeting. 
 
78 
 
 I' 
 
 Bridgetown, September 21.9<, 180?. 
 
 My Dkau Siu, — It having been necessary for the llev. W. S. MoK enzie, 
 pastor of'Jjcinster Street Church, St. John, N. B., to retire from tiie C(<iiiicil 
 before its Decision was prepared, lie writes nie, that liaving read said d(x.'u- 
 tnent, he authorizes me to afhx his signature to said Dtjcision so far as it 
 rehites to the allegations against the KeT. Dr. Pryor. You will please, there- 
 fore, to allix his name accordingly, in »pproTal of the finding of the Council 
 on the case so far as heard by hiui, and oblige, 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 Gko. Armstrong, 
 
 fS'ec'^. (; Council* 
 
 B. II. Eaton, Esq., Clerk of Granville St, Church, Halifax. 
 
 Tuesday, September 2ith, 18G7. 
 
 Cliurch meeting. Deacon Selden in the chair. Minutes of last meeting 
 read and approved. 
 
 Committee ajjpointed at the hust meeting reported. After some discussion 
 rc]K>rt adopted. Deacon Nutting did not act on this Committee. 
 
 Tli(! Ibllowing resolution was then moved by the Clerk, and seconded by 
 Bro. Paint, and passed : — 
 
 The decision of the Council with a copy rtf their minutes having been sub- 
 mitted to, and carefully considered by tiiis meeting. 
 
 Retioltied.— That with respect to tlie recommendation which concludes tlie 
 decision, the Church reganl it as alike due to tiie Council, an*; to Dr. I'ryor 
 that that rccoiinncndation be j)riiui])tly actt'd upon, but in approaching the 
 feionsideration which the Council have advised, the Church is sorry to be o i- 
 pelled to say that tiiey do notiirl warranted in adopting the findings of the 
 Council as their basis of reconsideration, for the foUowing among other 
 reasons .— 
 
 1. — The Council, in framing a mural decision, which, from the great noto 
 riety both of the charges n\ade, and of the vehement denial by the accused of 
 his guilt, must of necessity obtain a very wide circulation, have a<h)ptcd the 
 fornmiaof the verdict of a jury in a Court of Law, instead of the unecpiivocaJ 
 language of a deliveiance if a Church Council. 
 
 The decision on the first charge reads thus : " that in the o[)inion of the 
 Council, Dr. Pryor is not guilty of immorality .as charged in the Alh;gation, 
 &c." So positive and emphatic an exj)ression would naturally be under-tDod 
 to convey lo the Church, that the Council wished it to believe that the n; ny 
 and suspicious facts extending over a period of three years adtluced in support 
 of the cluirges were explicablt! l)y the Council apart from the supposition of 
 criminality; whereas, as pul.licly explained to the Chundi, by the President 
 of the Council, it expresses the fact that direct evidence of crinnnality waa 
 wanting. 
 
 The decision on the second charge " that the Council actpiit Dr. Pryor 
 of dishonest or fra kIuIi'Pl intention, in his dealings as the agent of Miss Vass, 
 &c.," would aj)pear to express the conviction of the Council, that all the i^vi- 
 dence in su])port of tie charge, was explicable l)y them on grounds consisti ot 
 with honesty; whereas, sis publicly explaine(I by tiie President of the Council 
 to the Church, it mea is that dishonest and fraudulent intention w;us not to 
 their minds fully ])rovcd. 
 
 The decision is not correct in regard to the case of Mrs. Morgan, inasmuch 
 n-s the Church put in evidence, and the Council receivetl certain statemeius 
 made by Dr. I'ryor to a Committee of the Church, and reduced to writing 
 by them, in terms suggested by Dr. Pryor himself, (see copy of Minutea of 
 Council, 7th Session). 
 
 ..i.^^ 
 
icil. 
 
 79 
 
 The decision is unacooinpanied hy the evidence adduced, and does not show 
 how the Council reached their conclusions in the face of the evidence. The 
 Churcli were anxious to be informed how the facts adduced by them in support 
 of their char<i;es could consist with the absence of guilt. 
 
 With respect to the action t)f the Clmrch, they take this opportunity of 
 Rayin<T that the decision is meaj^re and vague. Tiiey asked, " Whether their 
 action was such as should liaTC been taken under all th(! circumstances ; a,nd if 
 not, why not ; and what course the Church should have adopted ;" and although 
 that i? ^'um extended oyer a period of four months, and embraced many im- 
 portant points in Church government and discipline, in regard to iftiiich the 
 Church fully expected a definite and guiding oj/mion, yet only two subjects 
 are nvntiened in the decision, viz., the charge of " precipitancy in virtually 
 suspending Dr. I'ryor on the occurrence of the unhappy incident in I'U'aiant 
 Street," etc., and the matter of calling a Council, on one only of which a 
 decision was giv(;n. In regard to the fbrmei- the Council say, " whatever 
 mistakes " 1 lie Deacons may have committed, they are not, in view of the 
 Buddcnness with which their duties devolved upon them, chargeable with 
 want of afl'rction. What mistakes did the Deacons make? The Clmrch 
 wished, and considered themselves entitled to be specifically informed upon 
 fA this point. 
 
 2. — While investigating the charges against Di". Pryor, the Council, not- 
 withstanding the objections of tliw Church thereto, adojited the procedure of 
 courts of law instead of that of ailvisory Church C<juncils ; but in considering 
 the action of the Church, they reversed their method of proceeding. 
 
 The Council would not ailmit the testimony given and signed by ^fargan^t 
 Robinson, before a Comiiiitte(^ of the C'hurch ; whilst at the same time 
 they received as evidence from Dr. I'ryor an<l Dr. Crawley, purely ex 
 parte documentary testimony in regard to Dr. I'ryor's character. 
 
 Though conducting their proceedings after the manner of ctjurta of law, the 
 Council denied ilie Church the right to cross-examiue Dr. I'ryor or Dr. 
 Crawley in regard to a jxtrtiou of the former's })ast life in the ministry, or 
 to adduce certain important rebutting testimony in reference thereto, not- 
 j^ withstantling he and his adrocoIcK were allowed to testify ad lihitum with 
 
 respect to (lie spotlessness of Dr. I'ryor's past life. 
 
 Though conducting their proc 'cdings after the manner of courts of law, many 
 of the Councillors were the constant <^uests of the accused and his advocates. 
 
 The Churdi regret exceedingly that such obstacles stand in the way of 
 taking the decision of the Council as their guide in this grave matter, Ik cause 
 the Council laboured loni; and patiently in their investigation?, and because 
 the adoption of the decision would have relieved the Church from a grave 
 responsibility, which they now feel morally bound asaChur-hof Christ to 
 a.ssumc. 
 
 On the noth day of AIny last, the Cliiirch suspended fellowship Avitli Dr. 
 Pryor, until such tune as he should aflnrd satisfactory explanation of certain 
 statements apparently coiifirmato.iy of the charges then under consideration. 
 The main cpiestion now is, whether such exjilanation has been furnished. 
 After carefully considering all the evidence adducccl before the Council, the 
 Church are forced to conclude that it has not been furnished, and therefbni 
 tl "V cannot rescind their rc'^olution of siispeusiou, and they see no prospect of 
 any further light being thrown upon the matter. 
 
 Considering thcHc things, and the character of the ( videnco adduced in 
 Fuppovt of the chiirgi if immorality and impi'o]iriety. and Dr. "rvor's conduct 
 during the v;hole coni-sc of tin- proceeding* relating to him, the ('hnrcli havo 
 no course h'ft. but to declare the termination of Dr. I'ryor's connection with 
 thci . ivs a teacher, and they do licreby withdraw fellowjhii) from him. 
 
 i^S^ 
 
80 
 
 '-; 
 
 A letter was road from Rtn-. Geo. Armstronj^. 
 Then udjourued. 
 
 The Report of the Committee refei-red to in the foregoing is as follows; 
 
 The Committee appointed by the' Chnrch to examine the eopy of the 
 minutes of tlie Council and any eviilence obtainable by them, with a view of 
 furnislung new facts or considerations (if any) for the inibrmation of the 
 Ciiurch in carrying out tiie recommendation of tlio Council, beg to report 
 that they have been unable to find in the minutes of the Council, and in the 
 minutes of evidence obtairufd l)y them, any facts or considerations calculated 
 to explain the dilliculties in connexion with the series of pecuniary transac- 
 tions which have hitherto prevented the Church from eniertaining a more 
 favorable consideration of the acts of Dr. Pryor involved in the same. 
 
 B. II. Eatox, Sec'y. 
 D. :McN. rAUKKK, 
 Geouoe Fuaseu, 
 Halifax, Seplembct' 24///, 18()7. T. II. Rand. 
 
 On the 25th of September the foregoing resolution and the report of the 
 Committee were fijrwarded to Dr. Pryor with the following note : — 
 
 Halifax, September 2i)th, 1807. 
 
 Rev. Siu, — 1 enclose copy of resolution and report of Counnittee ado])ted 
 la.st evening. These, with the note of a previous meeting appointing said 
 Committee, embrace the whole jjroceedings of tiu; Church, relating to you, 
 which have taken place since the delivery of the Decision of the Council. 
 
 Yours, &e., 
 
 B. II. Eatox, 
 Rev. Dk. Puyou. Clerk Granville Street Church. 
 
 October IGth, 18(i7. 
 
 A Church meeting Was held after the prityer-meeting. Deacon Seldcn in 
 the chair. Minutes of previous meeting read and approved. The Chairman 
 stated that the meeting was called to consider the jn'opricty of publishing a 
 record of a part or all the proceedings of the Church relating to Dr. Pryor. 
 After some discussion the meeting adjourned without taking any action.