^ ^ "«>>. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) v.. 4^ 4^ ^ 1.0 ^1^ 1^ itt lU 12.2 mm I.I E (.25 20 m U ||.6 '/ Photographic SoHices Corporation 23 WiST MAIN STMET WfBSTIII,N.Y. 145M (716) •72-4503 i CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. -d CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Biblioflraphic Notaa/Notaa techniques et bibiiographiques The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy availabie for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, wliich may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may sigr ficantly change the usual method of filming, are checlced below. D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurte et/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gtographiques en couleur Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrat!ons en couleur Bound with other .material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de i'ombre ou de la distortion le lOng de la marge IntArieur. Blanic leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque ceia Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmantaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exempiaire qu'il lui a At* possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. r~| Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes Pages restored and/oi Pages resteur6es et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxec Pages dicolories, tachetAes ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages d^tachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprsnd du materiel supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I — I Pages damaged/ r~n Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~y] Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r^ Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ r^ Includes supplementary material/ I — 1\ Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont M filmtes A nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilieure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checlted l>elow/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X I I I I I I I I I |y | I I I 26X 30X 12X lex 20X 24X 28X 32X i^M Th« copy film«d h«r« has bMn r«produc«d thanks to tha ganarosity of: BibliothAqua nationala du Quibac L'axamplaira f!lm4 fut raproduit grAca i la gAnArosM 49: Bibliothdqua nationala du QuAbac Tha Imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia eonaidaring tha condition and iagibliity of tha original copy and in Itaaping with tha filming contract spacif Icationa. Original copiaa in printad papar covars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illustratad impraa- sion, or tha bacic covar whan appropriata. All othar original copias ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impras- sioR, and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad Imprassion. Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol — ^ (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), whiehavar applias. Laa Imagaa suivantas ont AtA raproduitas avac la plua grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga Laa axampiairas origlnaux dont la couvartura an papiar ast ImprimAa sont filmAs an commandant par la pramlar plat at an tarminant soit par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'iilustratlon, soit par la sacond plat, salon la ca4. Tous las autras axampiairas origlnaux sont filmAs an commandant par la pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'iilustratlon at an tarminant par la darniAra paga qui comporta una talia amprainta. Un das symbolas suivants apparaftra sur la darnlAra imaga da chaqua microficha, salon la cas: la symbols — ► signifia "A SUIVRE", la symbols V signifia "FIN". Maps, platas, charts, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raductlon ratioa. Thosa too larga to ba antiraly inciudad In ona axposura ara filmad beginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar, laft to right and top to bottom, as many framas as raquirad. Tha following diagrams lliustrata tha mathod: Las cartas, planchas, tableaux, etc., pauvant Atra filmAs A das taux da rAduction diff Arants. Loraqua la document est trop grand pour Atra raproduit en un seul clichA, II est f llmA A partir da Tangle aupArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant la nombre d'images nAcessaire. Las diagrammes suivants iilustrant la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 b44 i ,\ Printed for Private Circulation only.) MEMORIAL ADDKBSSBO TO THB C^tal %^^\%i %%mMm i NOVA-SCOTIA, 1 By HON. J. W. JOHNSTON, • « * • > « .. .( J r ' • I (i A HALIFAX, N. S. PRINTED AT BARNES' STEAM PRESS. 1368. Wlli m P'Z84.0^ i • » • • • • • ••• ... :". • ; . • ••* MEMORIAL. To THE Ministers and 'Delegates composing the Central Baptist Association op Nova Scotia: Dear Brethren, — I present in the following pages, and in the papers I refer to, charges which I make on behalf of myself, and others, against the Baptist Church in Granville Street, in the city of Halifax, that, should these charges be adequately sustained, the Association may require from that Church such an acknowledgment of its misdeeds as may vindicate its late members who recently withdrew from its fellowship; and, which is of far more importance, may vindicate the Baptist cause, and the system of Independent Church government, from the dishonor reflected on both, by the outrages on justice, truth, and charity, per- petrated by that body, under the pretext of exercising the authority of an Independent Church. It is my purpose to connect my printed Letter, addressed to Gran- ville Street Church, with this memorial, as part of my communication to the Association, that so I may avoid much repetition. I need not, therefore, repeat the sentiments I there expressed concerning Indepen- dent Churches ; of deference and affection when they are under the influence of Christian principles ; of repugnance when they are blinded and driven by evil passions. Nor is it necessary that I should here make any comment on the independence of the Churches. It will be sufficient introduction to my subject to remark, that if a particular Church, in the exercise of its powers, scorns the responsibility it owes to its Divine Master, — a responsibility which is the only foundation of its authority : — if, de- spising that responsibility, it tramples on His laws in its dealings with its pastor, or with members, and arrogantly makes its independence the excuse for breaking away from restraints of inviolate obligation, then will the like power of independent action warrant the Churches associated with a body thus abusing its independence, in excluding it from their connection and fellowship ; and their duty will demand the inflexible exercise of that power, until the guilty and erring Church shall be brought to a humbler and better mind, and have made all the atonement in its power for its wrongs against individuals, the Denomi- nation, and religion. In my Letter to the Church the conduct of that body during its pro- secution of its late pastor, is stated and commented upon. What I 58365 maasm I < I then advanced in justification of withdrawal from its fellowsliip, I now offer to you as charges against Granville Street Church. To these I add subsequent violations of truth, justice, and propriety ; and out of the whole there arise (piestions of general interest and application, and of the deepest importance. In its Reply to my Letter, in its communications to the Christiau Messenger, and in other acts, Granville Street Church has exhibited a disregard for truth, a violation of 1 iriesty, ind a callousness of feeling, so flagrant and undisguised, as would seem to set at nought the con- sequences of exposure, no h.ss than the restraints of principle. On what calculations this recklessness is adventured I need not enquire now ; my duty, — and it is a duty I cheerfully recognize, — is to believe that there exists among the ministers and delegates ot the Central Association, and among tlie ministers and members of the Baptist Churches of this and the adjoining provinces, an intelligence that shallow artifices cannot deceive, and an integrity that no influences can turn aside from the stern fulfilment of duty. With this letter I also send a copy of the Church's Reply to my letter to them. The Ghristimi Messenger is, I presume, accessible to the Association. In relation to the conduct of the Granville Street Church, evidences are to be found in the letters, appendices, and papers, that cannot be contravened, and by reference to which those who desire to ascertain the truth may do so, in most of the cases with certainty, if they shall be willing to devote a moderate share of attention to the investigation. The matters for consideration are so numerous that the briefest possi- ble notice of most of them is requisite, and many things worthy of notice must be omitted. I claim it, therefore, as an act of justice, not so much to me, as to themselves and the Denomination, that they who feel called upon to form an opinion on the subject, shall take the pains carefully to compare the assertions on each side, with those documents and facts which all concur In admitting to be correct. The charges which I desire to bring forward are principally as follows : — I. The exclusion of Dr. Pryor from his pulpit. li. The examination of witnesses by the Committee, in the absence of Dr. Pryor, persevered in after remonstrance and warning. III. The not calling a Council at an early stage of the transaction, after the Deacons had agreed with Dr. Pryor to recommend the mea- sure to the Church. IV. The refusal of a Council in the Vass matter, and the conduct of the Church in that business generally. V. The renewal of the charge of immorality after that charge had been fully disposed of. VI. The act of the Church in sustaining the violation of candor and truthfulness by Messrs. Selden and Beckwith at the Central Association last year, in relation to the calling of a Council. VII. The malignity towards Dr. Pryor manifested in the proceed- ings and subsequently. ■ 5 I VIII. Tho rrj«^rtion of tlio doclsion of tho Council. IX. The violiitiouH of truth on the part of the Church. X. The exchision of several members in fjood standinj?, who, from causes that rendered their remaining impossildo, ha\h innocent until proved K"'ltyi — and your proposition thut several of the deacons should talk the subject over with him next niorninK> and, if imssiblc, como to some unixon of sentiment, — had both been rejected, it was decided that he should not preach on the a|)proachin); Sunday. This decision is absolute and un(|ualiiicd, and Mr. Scldcn was recjucsted to com- municate with Dr. Pryor, and piocure another minister. Next day I was present at Mr. Selden's office, when Dr. Pryor came in. I re- mained until he went out Mr. Ackhurst was there, I think, all the time ; and Mr. Hand the greater part of, if not all the time. Without Koi"K into details, it may be enoufrh to say, that Dr. Pryor was earnest in the expression of his desire to be permitted to preach, and stroniLjIy reitrescnted the bad effect his expulsion would have. After a good deal of argument, in which, as well as I recollect, Mr. Selden was the principal speaker in opposition to Dr. Pryor's wishes, Dr. Prvor appeared overcome by his want of success, and, bursting into tears, hurried 'jut of the office, complaining that ho was deserted by his Church. Ihere was nothing like concurrence having been either asked from him or given by him. It was earnest remonstrances on the one side, and determined adherence to the previous decision on the other. The ill consequences anticipated by Dr. Pryor did certainly result. It spread abroad that the Church Ix in vol > ', due t ,; with I VI 'i dour callin after' , fully I Lettc ■h that I VI I Dr. I Thes ^•ILM 13 ■"iict that the ong; audit 3ul(l be car- ations, con- rolix, were 's own pen, His whole y, page 55, vn feeling,) n reference desire to )n as above his time as )n of May it excluded in my two 5ted by the ation (see immorality Pryor had ' worthless ty for the ley say :— . f vote and you ought rtunity to , which is he charge >urpose of here at- fFected by J the acts Qg by the je of im- >nce, and )e judged of it. nsistency '• Pryor's as if the 3vidence, jquate to 1 I peatcd: — that there was the violation of a broad fundamental principle, involving injustice to Dr. Pryor; the breach of the christian charity due to his many and dear friends in the Church ; and breach of honor with me. VI. — The sixth charge in my Letter relates to the want of can- dour and truthfulness at the Association las*- year, in relation to the calling of a Council, manifested by Messrs. Selden and Beckwith, and afterwards adopted by a solemn act of the Church. The charge is so fully explained in my Letter, (pages 13 and 31,) and in a previous Letter to the Church printed in the appendix to the Reply, (page 56), that any further comment here is needless. VII. — The seventh charge is the malignity and prejudice against Dr. Pryor manifested in the proceedings against him and subsequently. These are partially stated in my Letter (page 13). Other instances necessarily appear throughout this memorial. VIII. — Of the rejection of the Council's decision nothing is re- quired in addition to the comments contained in my Letter and its postscript, beyond some observations on the attempt which the Church has made to escape the obloquy of an act so unjust. The Reply, pages 15 and onward, expatiates on the paramount authority of a Church over the decision of a Council. They must not be permitted to escape under generalities. "What a Church may or may not do ordinarily, is not the point here. The question is : — "What was Granville Street Church bound in honor and justice to do under the particular circumstances of this case ? The Church had formed its judgments, and had pronounced its decisions. It had not sought advice. It had rejected the aid of a Council while the season for advice lasted. That season had passed, and condemnation had been rendered. The condemned party, dis- satisfied, appealed to brethren outside of Granville Street Church. The Association advised a Council, and the Church accepted the advice. Of necessity, the Council would consider whether Dr. Pryor was innocent or guilty, — in other words, whether the Church's decision was right or wrong. Of necessity, too, the Council must have the power to find either the one way or the other, as their consciences might dictate. And if the Council had the power, it followed as another necessary consequence, that a judgment in favor of Dr. Pryor was a contingency that, as rational men, the Association in advising the Church to accept a Council, and the Church in accepting, must have recognized as possible. And from this the conclusion is apparent, that the Church, in agree- ing to the Council, gave to Dr. Pryor at least, the tacit assurance that they did not consider their condemnation to be an infallible verity, for what was entitled to be reviewed was liable to be condemned. And this farther consequence followed, that if the reversal of the Church's decision was a possible contingency necessarily involved in the calling of a Council, both the Association in recommending, aud MMl II:' i \ ■' i^ 14 the Church in accepting the measure, virtually admitted that the Council might legitimately come to such a conclusion ; and that the reversal of the Church's decision would not he " in antagonism to the course which that body, as a Church of Christ, were morally bound to pursue." (See Reply, page 16.) These are self-evident deductions, and they contain an answer to almost everything advanced by the Church on this point. All the disquisition, therefore, respecting the independence of a Church, and Baptist principles, contained in the pages of the Reply which I am considering, is foreign to our enquiry. The idea that to require the Church to submit to the Council's decision in this instance, was a violation of those principles, may help the Church in its extremity, by diverting attention from the true and only point, and by exciting prejudice — in no other respect can it help them. The one point, I repeat, is — the deference which was in this case, in honor, and justice, and in consistency with its own consent to call a Council, due from the Church to the Council's decision. It is, therefore, unnecessary to follow the Reply through its stages of special pleading and unwarrant- able assumptions. I shall do little more than is necessary to extricate the case from the mists in which they have obscured it. A good deal of parade is made of the duty of a Church not to follow counsel which would require them to act contrary to the word of God and their Christian duty. It was not necessary to take so much trou- ble on a point which no sane man would controvert. But they had a purpose to efTect ; and accordingly the tendency of the observations is to excite a belief that Granville Street Church was placed in that predicament by the decision of the Council. On examining the facts in their simplicity, however, it is seen that the case is reduced to a mere difference of opinion between the Church and the Council. This much, indeed, is admitted in the Reply, page 19, "They, (the Council) advised us," says the Reply, " to reconsider our action, and in so doing referred us to their verdict. Were we to act upon their 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 was possible. Why did they not make an effort at least to convince us of our error ? We might then have seen good reason for changing our opinions." I have made this rather long extract, because it brings the matter to a point under their own hand ; and because it will be useful in another stage of the inquiry. I know not what data the Council could have given, or what more they could have done to change the Church's opinion than they did do. The evidence and the arguments were public. The Council had nothing on which to form their judgment that was not known to the Managing Committee of the Church. The function of the Council was to draw their conclusions from a large mass of testimony, delivered by a forme| ■writtt tatiort ! I hi tlookej lit call 5of the the pi ^fallj iprietj ■1^, ,:i\ M re 15 ed that the and that the oriism to the IJy bound to 1 answer to 't. All the 'hurch, and which I am require tlie ance, was a extremity, >y exciting ne point, I and justice, ) due from ecessary to unwarrant- o extricate 3t to follow 3rd of God much trou- they had a jrvations is led in that ? the facts iuced to a acil. This B Council) n so doing '^ice in the data upon evidence n of guilt, art of the the facts convince changing matter to I another hat more they did mcil had n to the Council !elivered by u great many witnesses. The Council have said th.'it they per- formed their duty patiently and prayerfully, and the result was a written decision, in which they exonerated Dr. Pryor from the impu- tation of guilt. i I have shown that both the Association and the Church must have llooked upon such a result as possible, and if possible, then legitimate. lit cannot be pretended, therefore, that acquiescence in the judgment •of the Council involved a breach of God's law, or of Christian duty on ^the part of the Church, unless upon one of two grounds ;— either the infallibility of Granville Street Church, or their sense of the impro- jpriety of acting on a judgment from which they differed. But these 'were reasons that might have been urged against consenting to a Council ; they are out of place aft3rwards. The Church might have said in the one case : — " Wo are gifted with omniscience, and know I that Dr. Pryor is guilty." Or in the other case : — " We admit that ' we are fallible, and may be wrong, but our conscience, nevertheless, is too tender to allow us to act on any opinion but our own, and there- ' fore it would be a mockery and an injustice to Dr. Pryor were we to consent to a Council." With such opinions, this must have been the course pursued by sensible and honest men. But after having agreed to the calling of a Council, and united in the selection of its members, after prosecuting Dr. Pryor before the Council with the utmost vigor, and after seeking a judgment of condemnation which would have I overwhelmed him in hopeless ruin, the assertion that Christian duty ^ forbade their according to him the benefit of an acquittal is to bring '" the profession of religion into contempt in the eyes of honest men, — is to prostitute Christian principle into a sham, and conscience into a cloak for self-will and injustice. The questions arise: — Why call twelve ministers and laymen from their homes and their duties? Why put Dr. Pryor through the awful ordeal of such a trial if there could be but one result,— condemnation by the Council, or renewed condemnation by the Church ? By their subsequent acts the Church have shown plainly that they were moved by no sense of justice to Dr. Pryor in consenting to a Council, but that their onl^ object was to make his ruin more complete and irremediable. Dr. Pryor, pro- testing his innocence, sought this tribunal, but did so subject to the alternative of failure, and its fearful consequences. The Church, on the other hand, risking nothing, consented to this tribunal, only that i^ through this it might strike a more crushing blow. And yet in their Reply they tell the public that they acted in vindication of Baptist principles ! No extenuation of the conduct of the Church can be found in the nature of the circumstances. The decision of the Council had every reason to* be entitled to the greatest consideration and respect. Eleven men, certainly as well fitted for the task as any which the Denomina- tion in the three Provinces can furnish, came to a unanimous decision. There is much in this unanimity, because it gives to the decision the weight of the judgment of the six Councillors whom the Church had selected, and who, it is not pretended were exposed to influence from -gi. 'M ii i\ m 18 Dr. Pryor or his friends. To hold an opinion opposed to such a decision without some liesitancy and doubt, betokens the rashness of ignorance, and the obstinacy of self-conceit ; to act upon it, if in oppo- sition to the merciful side of the question, and to the golden rule, which, where a doubt exists ever inclines in favor of innocence, betokens a hard and a callous indifference to the responsibilities that attach to the giving of judgment where the highest interests of human- ity are at issue ; to act thus in contempt of a decision predicated on a mutual submission, betokens a defiant violation of the principles of honor and justice ; and to throw over this combination of self-suffici- ency, hard-heartedness, and injustice, the cloak of religion, can be nothing else than sanctimonious pretence. Is there any man so low in intellect, so obtuse in feeling, as to believe that the religion of the benign Redeemer demanded from a body of his professed followers, under the circumstances of this case, to reject the decision of the Council, and not only to refuse to with- draw their former sentence of suspension passed on the alleged charge of fraud, but also to condemn on the alleged charge of immorality, respecting which they had before formally declared that they did not impute guilt ; to treat one but recently their pastor, as guilty of two great offences, cf which a tribunal, so entitled to respect, had declared, with prayerful solemnity, that they believed him not to be guilty ? Presumptuous men ! How dared they arrogate the attribute of the Omniscient God ! And for what ? Dr. Pryor had suffered the grievous punishment of abrupt dismission from the pastorate. He was left, as old age approached, to seek some means of livelihood for the partner of his sorrows and himself, during their remaining years, and with his character tarnished, as far as Granville Street Church had power to tarnish it. Was this not punishment enough to satisfy pride and vengeance, if these passions clamored for their prey ; or to vindicate the rectitude of Christian discipline, if higher principles prevailed ? Must this decision of a high and sacred tribunal, disinterested and unswayed by passion, be assumed to be wrong ; and a Christian Church run the awful hazard, — awfully great in the face of such a decision, — of condemning an innocent man, rather than permit one drop in the full cup of vengeance to be turned aside from the devoted head ; or, to suit my language to their own phraseology, rather than run any risk that possibly Church discipline might not do its full work ! The Church, however, attempts to attenuate the finding of the Council in Dr. Pryor's favor, and in doing so they are guilty of dis- torting the facts, and perverting the acts of the Council in a manner so daring, that one is at a loss to know whether it was the fruit of some tortuous mind incapable of just conceptions, or a contemptuous belief in the credulity and weakness of others, or a reckless indiffer- ence to the opinion of any. They say, (Reply, page 18,) " Did the Council mean to declare their belief in Dr. Pryor's innocence ? Quite otherwise." Can malignity go further than this ? Eleven Baptist ministers and owl arc an(| as gUf of wo J.' 5 ^t'ls *; 0V( 1 exi) H ell tlio ble ^ reft '¥ d to such a rashness of t, if in o2)po- Toldeu rule, ' innocence, ibilities that ;8 of human- dicated on a ►rinciples of self-sufRci- ion, can be Qling, as to (led from a )f this case, ise to with- 3ged charge immorality, hey did not lilty of two id declared, guilty ? bute of the !; dismission seek some self, during as far as this not 36 passions Christian jision of a lassion, be •ul hazard, jmning an vengeance nguage to ly Church ig of the Ity of dis- a manner fruit of emptuous indiflfer- ilare their isters and 17 Laymen, including the six elected by the Chnifh, sny, under their own hands, that after prolonged, [citient, and prayi-rful nttcMition, they are of opinion that Dr. Prvor is "not guilty" of immorality as charj^o!(■ !al with III J act 0} separation," The italics arc ours." In order to expose this deceptions statement, I quote Mr. Payzant's remarks in full : — " It is unnecessary that I should here go in detail into the merits of the charges made by your Church against Dr. Pryor, their late pastor. Whether those charges were true or false, is foreign to the purport of this letter, and remotely, if in any wise, connected with my act of separation. Let me only say here, that from an [ early stage of the proceedings which led to his exclusion from the Church, I have I I ill i. liHtl tliiMloopi'Ht convirfion of his innoconri! and morni nTtitiidc; and tlionforo hold that tho act of oxchision wan wruntr, tinwarrantfd Uy th« facfH, and Hiilivt-rKivi- uf that ri'H|M>('t and control in a coniniunity, which a ('hurcli ot onr Lord xhoiild ooh- WRH, Ijoudly, howuvur, aM I do iirotont a^niinxt an act ho nnwarrantuliic as tliiN, I feci liow tenderly the covcrinj^ ot that charity " that NulK-n'th lonj; and is kind," Hhonid Im- spread over the acts of an errinir Chureli, wlivru the error has hecti that of the understandin)r and not of the heart Had forlntikranco, honcHty, and a ('hristian uiid Norrowin^r spirit, staniiK'd this act with their own lioly imprcs, I should havu iKutn impatient, 'tis true, ot the violence done to my fvclin^rH and reason, hut would }uive liowcd to the decision of brethren. Hut I look in vain for any such Hiuivcniy marks of discipline as these in Dr. I'ryor's exclusion. As 1 now review its character step hy step, as I call to mind the hasty action, the reckless manner of receivinjrfvidence, the rejection of wise and considerate advice, the jHTsonal treatment of Dr. I'ryor, the sneer, the rehidf, tho "a<:erness to clutch at every tritlu apiinst him, and the disiiij;eiiuoiis evasion of facts that told in his fivor, the rejection of overtures for calling a Church Council, und tho rejection of that Council's decision when called, I declare I tremhie for the con- dition ot men so deaf alike to the voicvj of reason, humanity, and religion. If such stran^re conduct had hcen the suildcn outlmrst of a moment, or of a few days, I knew that reflection and prayer woiild have restored the better mind ; hut when throu|rh those weary weeks of wran^lin;; and bad temper I tbiind tlie evil instead of abating, outgrowing all restraint, I felt that here, and now Christian charity should pause before other and sterner duties. Though I know I must have Iteen somewhat ia- Huenccd by the factious spirit and anger of the hour, I have had frequent occasion, since I ceased to enter the portals of the,Church, cahnly to review the whole matter. I have tried to examine its every phase l)y the light of reason and religit)n. I have asked myself wliether that conduct could be ex])licable on any other ground than that of a bad mind and heart. I have watched narrowly the later developements of the evil in the unmanly attitude the Mfsiutiffpr has assumed, in the vile slanders that even now are retailed at the corners of tho streets in this city, against Dr. I'ryor, and in the unflagging effort to crush him forever — from all which I feel the more thoroughly convinced how inii»ossible was any continuance of fellowship in the past, and how futile, if not wrong, any hope for its renewal in the future. Though the subject is of a character too painful to Ikj thus adverted to without extreme reluctance, I should be wanting in a proper respect for myself, my judgment and my religion, if I allowed any consideration to influence me in concealing or palliating the final and conclusive nature of my cause for separation from tho Church. But that act of ecclesiastical tyranny had a broader and more fundanu!ntal signifl" cance than this ; it had a meanmg that touched tho very constitution and govern* mcnt, not of Granville Street Church alone, hut of all Baptist Churches. It meant that the majority of individual members in a Baptist Church could lay their hands upon a worthy man and ruin him for life; that whether good men or bud men, this majority could act, however tremendously imi)ortant the issues involved, without appcllnte control, or regard to might, save their own particular ends ; that under the guise of an exalted Christianity and pure discipline it could jioisc a deadlier shaft and wreak a more terrible wroiig ; in fine, a Church which should aspire in its government to realize the status of a pure theocracy, could assume the functions of the worst religious despotism. Isolated though the case of Dr. Pryor might bo, one naturally asked himself what guarantee had he that the next victim to this tyranny might not be himself or his neighbour. Must there not be some thing wrong, some thing radically wrong, in that religious system which became a jeoj)ardy to the reputation and usefulness of its members instead of a safeguard ? — was a question I tbimd myself unable to get rid of by means of any previous study or conclusion." Comment is superfluous. Secondly — The eagerness with which the Church has sought pretext for presenting before the public detached portions of the evi ot'wino and ho roiiiiir, tlu! I'asioM of facts Council, und u for till! con- ion. If Nuch (lays, I knew r-licn tliroii]rh id of ahatliij;, should pauso lomcwiiat iii- icnt occasion, wliolo matter. rioii. 1 have ground tiian iIopuinuntH of slanders that ;I)r. i'ryor, li-'el the more p in the past, d to without ny judgment onccaling or I the Church , iMital sij^nifl- and f>(jvern- . It meant their hands nd men, this cd, without tliat under ' a deadlier iisjiire in its functions of i)^ht lie, one lis tyranny i'roiiy, some irdy to the ! a question onclusion." It pretext ence, and actuated re especi- )asses the ordinary moasnrft of human malif^jjiify. No plooo or plows of tlio toiifi- niony. even if reprt'suntiMl fri't; from «'xa^;5«'ration and dintortion, coidd justity all o|Mniou liy any one who had n(»t had thoopportiinitieH which were atrordcii J :1 ll -f ^ -■!• I ri) |H 24 took no part in it, or did so only in obedience to the watchword : — " Stand by the Charch." I am aaked who is likely to be wrong, I, and those sympathize with Dr. Pryor, or the remainder of the Church. It might not be a greafc breach of modesty were I to believe that in a case depending on deductions from evidence I might be entitled to form and' express an opinion. Let me rather, however, seek an answer to their question, from you. I invite you to follow the case throngh its various stages,, and say whose judgment is entitled to the more respect. 1. I advised a personal conference with the pastor respecting the preaching on the ftrst Sunday in the ti'ansaetion. The Church neg- lected the advice. Who in this shewed the better judgment and the higher sense of propriety ? 2. I denounced the taking of evidence behind Dr. Pryor's back> and urged a different course. They rejected my couuseh Who in this case showed the better judgment? 3. I advised a Council before the Church had committed itself tO' any judgment oii either charge. My advice was not followed. Was it, or was it not sound advice that should be followed ? The admis- sions of Dr. Parker and of the Church h.ive already answered this question in the affirmative. 4. Was the advice that I gave sound, that recommended the referring of the Vass matter to a Council ? 5. Was the conduct of the Chm*ch proper in renewing the charge ©f immorality after it had been passed upon, or was my remonstrance against that course warranted and just? G. Would it have been wise and proper in tlie Church to have followed my advice and to have accepted the Council's decision? Consider the evils that have followed those acts of the Church from which I differed', and say whether those evils would not have been averted bad my advice been followed. Thus shall you be able to answer, from the materials before you, the question — Who was wrong ? It is asked: — how are improper motives to be accounted for in the treatment of Dr. Pryor. I have explained, in my Letter, how enmity and antagonism were engendered, which, in minds incapable of rising, above pique and resentment, operated to Dr. Pryor's prejudice in the action of the Church. But in addition to this it would not be difficult to trace in different individuals varied motives in accordance with their varying character and circumstances, all leading to the one result — hostility to their pastor. Such a task it is not my purpose here to undertake. The representation that the Church acted from high and holy motives, free from passion and enmity, sounds well to those abroad : I, who was pi'esent, and witnessed it all, feel it to be but a delusion. But let me ask a question that may elacidate this. How came it that a Church, who claim to be possessed of kindly affection toward their pastor, should, in every instance, when two com-ses were open, have adopted the harsher, with one exception, and from that they recanted ? Had the deacons called on the pastor before the first Sunday, ia J rel 9 roi| f thi 4 «y 'i cat « wl the ab^ 25 tchword : — ftthize with be a great )en(ling on express an r question ions stages^ ecting the lurch ueg" Jut and the jTor's backy k Who in ;d itself to. red. Was rhe admis- vered this ended the the charge aoDstrauce h to have ion? urch from lave been le able to xs wrong ? for in the iw eumity of rising. ice in the e difficult vith their result — here ta high and to those be but a 3. How affection ses were 'om that inday, iD. I H relation to the preachings it would have been at ouce kind and deco- rous, and might have led to I)eneficial results, and averted the evil* that grew out of the hostility engendered by the opposite course. Sympathetic feeling and kindly affection dictated this course. IIow came the leaders of Granville Street Church to reject that course when proposed by one of the deacons ? Why was the dictate of natural justice violated, and the advice of the deacou rejected, as regarded the taking of evidence in Dr. Pryor's absence ? IIow is the opposition to a Council, in the first instance, notwith- standing the agreements of the deacons to be accounted for, when a Council at that time midit have averted such a fearful amount of mischief? Why the rejection of the Council on the Vass matter ? AVhy the uncalled-for renewal of the charge of immorality, at the expense of the feelings of the friends of Dr. Pryor in the Church ? Why i-eject the decision of the Council, when a respectful deference to it would have prevented so great an amount of mischief? Why aim to lacerate the feelings of Dr. Pryor and his friends, by publishing distorted and partial statements of the evidence ? There is one apparent exception ; they had the power to have gone further than they did, in the resolution of May 10th. It must be pre- sumed that their action was then conscientious. How was it that they repented of this one only act, that had the aspect of consideration for the pastor, and sought, and finally did push the matter to its utmost extremity ? Were they ashamed that there should be a single instance in which, two courses being open, they had not pursued the harsher ? Reflect on the striking fact, that in eveiy stage, and they were many, the harsher course was invariably pursued, except in one, and in that one they retracted. The inevitable inferences to be derived from these two analyses of the facts are worth far more than their strained arguments, in deter- mining whether Granville Street Church acteil with wisdom and tenderness in dealing with their late pastor. In connection with this I will make a further remark, to which I beg the most serious considei'ation : No one who> makes himself acquainted with the facts, can fail to perceive that there was a period when the Church, — its leaders, of course, I mean here,— did assume u position of hostility and antagonism to Dr. Pryor, and had sunk the character of judges in that of hostile litigants. From that period, any act done by them, in the*character of judges, was unauthorized, in- consistent, and niig-atory. That period had surely arrived at the Association lasf .June ; it had assuredly arrived during the negociations for a Council. That it had arrived during the proceedings before the Council, no one then present can doubt. Tlie fact to which I allude,, is indisputably shewn in the records and acts of the Church. When, therefore, after the decision of the Council, the Cliurch undertook to pass on Dr. Pryor's moral character and conduct, they were disquali- fied for the office they assumed, for two reasons : — ,? "a 26 t \ r^ ? i iHl 5 i lill First — They had voluntarily abandoned the position of judges, and assumed that of litigants. Whether they had done so rightly or wrongly, was nothing to Dr. Pryor ; they had done so ; he had con- sented to meet them as litigants ; and the issue was put in the hands of the Council. After that issue was decided they could not resume the characters of judges, — reason revolts from the idea ; but Secondly — The conflicts between them, while holding the relation of hostile litigants, had engendered feelings utterly opposed to the impartiality and calmness necessary for just judgment. On this ground then, were there no other, the act of the Church, on the 24th day of September, in passing on the moral character and conduct of Dr. Pryor, was founded on the assumption of an office which they were not entitled to assume, and if they were so entitled, they yet were not in the condition of mind necessary for the perform- ance of its functions. I am told in the Reply, page 20, that I had scarcely touched the great question of guilt or innocence, and that I had made no effort to remove the great difficulty of the Church, by fairly dealing with the evidence. Before the decision of the Council, by common understanding, the evidence taken on the charge of immorality, had been adjudged by the Church, not to sustain the imputation of guilt, and there was no occa- sion to discuss that charge again until the Council met. On the charge of fraud, I had given my reasons to the Church, why the errors in Dr. Pryor's accounts, and the evidence on that subject did not sustain the imputation of intentional wrong, and ought not to affect his moral character. My own belief in Dr. Pryor's innocence I did express in my letters, but I did not discuss the evidence, and for two principal reasons : — First — My letter ^ras written to justify my withdrawing from Granville Street Church ; my reasons for impugning the conduct of the Church, were not dependent on the question of Dr. Pryor's guilt or innocence, and I did not intend to give them any pretence for evading ray charges by raising any other issue. Secondly — I considered, as I still consider, that the decision of the Council had closed the enquiry, and I did not intend to weaken the weight of that decision, by opening up a question which they had determined. Throughout this Memorial I have made mention of many violations of Christian charity ; but amid all the acts of malevolence done by Granville Street Church, their conduct toward Mrs. Pryor stands out with revolting prominence. After the cloud had burst upon the head of a husband whom, from the experience of forty years she loved and trusted, and while her own heart was rent with agony in her deep sympathy with him, no member of the Church api)roached her to sus- tain or console, save a few of the female members, who, however, speedily discontinued their visits with the exception of two, whose kindness warrants the title " sister/' a title profaned by the others. ill ^'i 27 f judges, and o rightly or he had con- in the hands d not resume but the relation >osed to the e Church, on haracter and of an office e so entitled, the jjerform- touched the 5 no effort to ng with the standing, the idged by the was no occa- n the charge errors in Dr. not sustain 5ct his moral d express in iVo principal awing from ! conduct of 'ryor's guilt )retence for lision of the weaken the h they had y violations ce done by :• stands out 311 the head 3 loved and in her deep her to sus- >, however, two, whose ! others. The Reply, teeming as it does with statements concerning her hus- band most revolting to her feelings, was directed and sent to her by the act of the Church, and she was thus invited to read this disgusting compound of misrepresentation and malice, from which her soul could only turn with a loathing and abhorrence that may well be imagined by all whose hearts have not been trained to Christian charity in the school of Granville Street Church. There are Baptist wives who can enter into her feelings, and can understand this outrage perpetrated on a wife's loyalty and love to the cherished partner of life's joys and sorrows. But the cup of insult was not yet filled to the measure required. The following communication was made to her : — IMifax, April 18, 1868. Mks. E. M. Prtor : Madam, — I am directed by the Granville Street Baptist Church, Halifax, to forward you the enclosed resolution passed by them last evening. Your obedient servant, B. H. EATOii, Clerk. " The conduct and general spirit of Sister E. M. Pryor, in reference to the case of discipline of our late pastor having been considered by us, and her communica- tions to us relative to the Bubject above mentioned having been read before us, and she having absented herself from the communion of the Church for a long time — Resolved, — That we regret deeply the course Sister Pryor has taken, but regard- ing that course as unscriptural and disorderly, we now feel it our painful rluty to withdraw fellowship from her, and we do hereby, accordingly, withdraw fellowship from her." And who is " Mrs. E. M. Pryor," who is thus exposed to every obloquy which might attach to the highest exercise of power possible to Granville Street Church? Let me answer. She is a woman who, for forty years, has devoted her life to works of piety and holy benevolence in the Baptist Church — one who has ever been a ministering spirit in the chambers of sorrow and sickness — whose path through life has been followed by the prayers of the poor and the mourner going up as orisons to Heaven. Characteristic was her remark to a friend on the occasion when, in violation of an engagement professed to be permanent, her husband's income was diminished by the unexpected demand of rent : — " I am sorry for it," said she, " for it is the poor who will suffer, all that we could spare from our income has been devoted to them." Witnesses from every place where she has been can testify to the truth of this portrayal. But to do her character full justice you must have the testimony of those who have known her day by day while suffering from the cruellest and bitterest trial to which woman's nature can be put ; who have been with her, too, at the very moment when, by some inadvertence, there were brought to her notice those messages of falsehood and malice sent to the Baptists of Nova Scotia by Granville Street Church through the Christian Messenger. Patient suffering of wrong and resigned submission to her Heavenly Father's will marked her every word and action. No vindictive J f. I 1 n IH! 28 recrimination against the persecutors of her husband and herself ever escaped her lips. Among the hardest words were such as these : — " How can these men say such things about my husband, whose whole life has been spent in the service of God, and in works of usefulness and benevolence, who labored so faithfully among themselves ? How can they persecute us so ?" In writing this, I speak what I have seen and heard. All who came within her sphers felt the influence of a deportment so heavenly, and some accustomed to put but little trust in religious profession, were constrained to exclaim — " This u religion." When indeed she sought to separate herself from those with whom she could not hold any communion, she was called upon to speak more distinctly of their conduct, and the dignity of Granvil'e Street Church was offended, yet her letter is no other than one which will claim the admiration and sympathy of every generous heart. ^ ' What then is her offence ? In the forefront is " the conduct and general spirit of Sister E. M. Pryor, in reference to the case of discipline of our late pastor." What conduct would they have had from her ? She believed her husband to be innocent, and acted on that belief — yet calmly and modestly. Had she stood the only one who protested his innocence, she would not have perpetrated any high offence, and many many hearts would have sympathized in her true hearted faith, but sue stood not alone. Eleven selected men had declared her husband not to be guilty of the crimes laid to his charge. True, Granville Street Church differed, and the wire drawn distinctions, and refined special pleading, by which they justified their dissent, found no place in her mind ; — but neither had the Council seen them. But further, she did not perversely obstruct their path — " We differ as regards your treatment of my husband beyond the hope of agree- ment, and while we differ on such a point, my communing with you would be but a profanation. I will withdraw, and leave you unem- barrassed by my presence, while I seek a more congenial resting place" — such is the language of the facts and of her acts. This surely is the course prompted by i*eason and religion. But the answer is : — " You shall not leave us :" and " Why may I not leave you ? For what object should I remain ?" is the natural rejoinder. " You must remain that we may turn you out." " And what is the advantage gained by turning me out ?" " Much," replies the Church. "' We will disgrace you as far as it lies in our power. We will shut you out of every other Baptist Church in the Association, and compel you to live without the ordinances, or seek them in another communion. It is Baptist practice." If it be Baptist practice, 1 hesitate not to say that it is one which is " more honored in the breach than in the observance." Here is a wife believing in the innocence of her husband, and con- firmed in that belief by the solemn judgment of a competent tribunal after full investigation. Here is a Church trampling on that judgment and pursuing her husband with unsurpassable rancor. Every honest |ini call thi] 8at ;hei 'paci Ian' jmiil fori stal i,?.i 29 ^ 1 hierself ever I as these : — whose whole of usefulness fives ? How Ul who came eavenly, and ession, were with whom > speak more reet Church ill claim the iister E. M. or." What ler husband 3 modestly. she would 3art8 would not alone, uilty of the ch differed, g, by which but neither We differ of agree- with you ITou u Hern- ial resting jion. But [ not leave rejoinder, hat is the e Church. 1 sJiut you )mpel you mmunion. sacred feelings to torture; she must act a falsehood in pretending, by her conduct, a fellowship that does not exist, and make a mockery of [sacred things ; or, she must submit to be disgraced, and sent abroad Ian outcast. Surely, such a doctrine cannot commend itself to reflecting Iminds. It can only tend to render contemptible the act of exclusion, [for no one will be, or will feel to be disgraced under such circum- I stances. I must notice the mistake into which I am said to have fallen, in reference to certain charges against the Church, presented to the Council, (see Reply, page 21,) because there was, apparently, a mistake in my Letter. In reality there was none, at least, according J to my apprehension of the circumstances. I presented those charges as from myself, as a member of the Church, and supposed that it was iso understood, as well by the Church as the Council. They were [withdrawn at the desire of the Council, because, as I understood, they [did not consider their functions to extend beyond the questions between Dr. Pryor and the Church. By some misapprehension, what I in- tended to do on my own behalf, was supposed to have been done for Dr. Pryor. The Reply abounds with allusions to my observations that the decision of the Council was just and righteous, and with labored arguments to shew that the Council had acquitted the Church, and, therefore, I ought not to censure. I have not been able to see the accuracy of the premises, or to comprehend the force of the argumentation. My remark on the de- cision was intended in reference to the acquittal of Dr. Pryor, but I have no objection to its being extended ; and the decision speaks only of two points in the Church's conduct, and f f both with disapproval. Among much that I cannot comprehend, one thing is clear, Gran- ville Street Church has profound respect for the judgment of the Council — provided, always, that it can be construed in their own favor ; as a shield to protect themselves it is invulnerable ; when thrown over Dr. Pryor it is worthless ; but then it is a more sacred duty to shield Granville Street Church, from even the slightest imputation, than to save their late pastor from ruin in its most terrible forms. X. — I have now to enquire into the nature of the relation that subsists, or ought to subsist between a Baptist Church and one or more of its members, who can conscientiously no longer continue in their connection either from change of opinion in doctrine, or from the belief that the Church or an influential portion of its members have violated fundamental principles of Christian conduct, under circum- stances that destroy respect, confidence and affection. There is required in Independent Churches a personal and indivi- dual fellowship and intimacy in Church relations between the different members. Were this wanting they would be brought into parity with systems from which, on that account, among others, they differ. 14 I it ! I 30 Wlicn circumstances arise which destroy community of feeling what is to be done ? Common sense replies, — let the members withdraw. Is there any scriptural doctrine or precept to the contrary ? If there is, that decides the question. I know of none. The connection cannot continue. In fact it is virtually terminated. There must be with- drawal or exclusion. lu one respect, the effect is the same, — the termination of the relation, but that is all that the sentence of exclusion professes to do ; and it has the appearance of trifling for the Church to say, " we with- draw fellowship," when the member can reply : — " There is no fellow- ship to withdraw from, seeing that I withdrew my fellowship from you some months ago, as I wrote to inform you." It may be said that exclusion is a punishment. Strictly speaking this is a mistake. An Independent Church has no power to punish. It can neither fine, imprison, whip, or apply the thumb-screw. All that it can do is to separate an offending member from its communion, and this seems to imply that the member is in voluntary connection. As regards members who have withdrawn for adequate causes it carries no moral weight ; and if they are in circumstances to be unaffected by it other- wise, it is hrutum fulmen, and is treated with indifference or contempt. There may be circumstances in which it may affect an innocent man injuriously, and then it is unjust ; and it is unjust and uncharitable, though in a less degree, in all cases where the members have with- drawn, and the sentence is not required for the purpose of separation, but is passed from a desire to degrade or annoy. Tho entry into a Baptist Church is an act of conscience and will ; 80 should be the remaining in it ; and it is most repulsive to me to regard it as a prison in which members must be retained against their will ; — retained practically they cannot be, but retained nominally, and for the sole purpose of insult and degradation. When a member withdraws fi'om change of religious opinions, as in Mr. Payzant's case, the act of exclusion is a glaring inconsistency with Baptist principles and practice. Who maintain more strictly than Baptists the freedom of conscience ? and shall they hold Episco- palians, Wesleyans, Presbyterians to be free to leave their communion to join that of the Baptists, and preclude a Baptist from exercising like liberty should his conscience prompt him to change his views ? So as regards a wife who believes her husband to have been the victim of a cruel prosecution by the Church, and has withdrawn from a communion abhorrent to her best and holiest feelings, as is the case with Mrs. Pryor. So as respecting members who saw their late pastor pursued with unchristian temper and implacable malice by the Church, and the law of truth trampled under foot in their attempts to justify their conduct ; and in consequence broke off from their connection, as is the case with myself and others. In any of these cases shall the power to withdraw be denied, when l\ \ ™>fsfiimm 31 feeling what rs withdraw. ■y? If there ection cannot ust be with- ation of the fesses to do ; "we with- is no fellow- owshiij from be said that listake. Aii neither fine, can do is to his seems to As regards ies no moral by it other- >r contempt. mocent man mcharitable, have with- |f separation, !e and will ; re to me to igainst their aainally, and inions, as in I consistency ore strictly old Episco- communion exercising i views ? e been the Irawn from is the case rsued with nd the law ir conduct ; } case with lied, when lie propriety of withdrawing is palpable; when to remain would be a lesecration of the principles of Cliurch fellowship, and a nominal Inion with all the elements of disunion? It has been said, that there is a mode of separation by dismissing, ["his docs not touch the principle ; and the question is too important to le disposed of by a side wind. Does a member's freedom of conscience id will give him a right to withdraw when it is manifest that the kond of union has been dissolved ? This is the question. ]iut, in kart, this objection concedes the principle, for the right to rccjuire u lismission recognizes the right to separate from the Church with which Ihe member is in connection, and, that right being admitted, it will be Impossible, I believe, to maintain the principle that the Church, from which he so separates, has a right to regulate his action after lie has left it. It has been said, I believe, that a Church has a right to see that its members do not go abroad into the world without the restrain- ' ig influences of Church relationship. It must be remembered that a baptist Church is not the Church ; it is only a Church ; and leaving It does not import the going into the region of heathenism, and heresy, Jlnd error, or even the leaving the services of a Baptist Church. The relations between the withdrawing member and his Church may be inconsistent with dismission ; besides it may not be convenient to join jftnother Church ; there may be none conveniently situated, or con- genial ; or other reasons may prevent the possibility or the desire to )in another Baptist Church at that time. In the case of change ^f doctrinal opinions, and where the individual unites with another )enominauon, dismission is unsuited to the circumstances. Another answer I understand has been that if the freedom of action here contended for were allowed, the Church might become depopu- lated. This shows but poor reliance on the power of truth, and is making a prison indeed of a Baptist Church. ; Members of Granville Street Church moved by a sense of the great violation of Christian duty on the part of the Church in a matter so deeply aifecting one who had but recently been their pastor, and who was connected with them by strong ties of relationship or friendship, . and knowing that their bond of union with the Church had been irreparably sundered, formally withdrew from the fellowship of the Church, and gave notice in writing through the Clerk of having done so. These acts of withdrawal were not recognized by the Church, and pn the 18th day of April, resolutions for withdrawing fellowship from each of them were passed by the Church, this act was delayed for many months, and my son and myself have since been united with the Baptist church at Dartmouth. The task I have had to perform has been a most distasteful and repulsive one. Pretentious rhetorical displays where the sense is not commensurate with the sound, false assumptions and inane conclusions, petty quirks, and the little artifices common to minds that mistake cunning for wisdom, and artifice for intellectual acumen, pervade this '^ >ly, and offend taste and reason ; but far worse than this is the r disregard for truth, displayed in almost every page. 32 ml Throughout tho Church records of Granville Street Church will 1»« seen tho sftmo nuirks of tho tortuous niinrl, — the same absence of sim- plicity of thought and feeling, — the same resort to puerile distinctions, overstrained argument and captious objections, that abound throughout tho Reply ; and nothing, anywhere, of the lionesty, frankness, candor, and plain common sense, that should distinguish the utterance of a Church of Christ. If it has been mortifying to be obliged to give my time and thought to such a production as tho Reply, it has been distressing to be obliged to sjviak, as I have done, of a Church with which I have been con- nected since its formation, some forty years ago ; in whose formation I bore no inconsiderable part, and in whoso fellowship I had expected to pass the short remnant of my days. I have the satisfaction to know that in all my connection with the Church I have never aimed at pre-eminence, or failed in marked deference to others ; and throughout the unhappy transactions to which your attention has been called, it is a source of gratification that I acted with a strict regard to my duty as a member. My error was, in communicating too little with Dr. Pryor in the early stages, and in not detecting the necessity of using any influence I might possess, to counteract the banding of members into an unreasoning body, follow- ing their leaders ; yet, I take consolation in the assurance, that had the counsel I gave, been regarded, much of the evil we deplore would liave been averted. It is for you to pronounce on the charges I have brought against Granville Street Church, and to determine the questions that arise out of those charges. It is intimated, indeed, that it becomes not a single member to pro- nounce upon the conduct of the Church. What ! Is the eye to be blind to acts of injustice and oppression ; the ear deaf to falsehoods perpetrated before it ; and seeing and hearing, is there to be no cor- responding action ? Are others to be serfs, that a few in Granville Street Church may play the despot ? These pretensions suit neither Baptist principles nor Baptist feeling. But I need not dwell upon these. Granville Street Church admits that " every member of the Baptist Churches comprising the Central Association, has pledged himself to refer the important matter of un- churching a Church, as far as the expression of the public opinion of the Church goes, to the Association," (Reply, page 33) and that is the question I refer to you. Had, indeed the Dartmouth Church been awed by the significant hint in the Reply, page 33, or swayed by its sophistry, I should have been shut out from this opportunity of address- ing you, by the act of exclusion, which act, long deferred came not a great while before holding the Association. I am not insensible to the influence which Granville Street Church will bring to bear on this enquiry, and the embarrassment which these influences may throw around the steps of many members. For the sake of the Denomination, and the cause of truth, I trust that the uprightness and intelligence of the ABsociation will be equal to the lut) nte )t' n riiti ,'1k )riv M\t Ills hiie il (^H »~.' p ^■ lurch will 1.0 )8cnco of sim- th'stiiictions, d throughout noss, caiMlor, terance of a and thought to be ohJigod e been con- ►80 formation ttf address- ame not a et Church lich these For the that the tal to the 8S jlitty which it ih ralhid upon to fultil, and I have faith in that upriffhtneiut uu\ intulligeiuv. For iny^tolf I have personally little, or ratiier no ntureHt in tht' fuy lift; was spent amid labors and sacriHces in adsisting in the ele- ration of the b(Miominatioii in connection with the fathers, under rlioso Nanction, assistance, and encouragement, it was my pride and )riviltige to act; and remembering these things I may not be indifTer* M«t to the niannor in which they, on whom-the duty has descended in this later day, of maintaining the honor of the Denomination and the integrity of the Churches, shall fulfil that duty. J. W. JOHNSTON. I wwri ttrn^ ^■p *' t POSTSCRIPT. I' :t While the Memorial was pasHing through the press, an Kxtni of ih*' (yhribtiun Messenger of the .'Jrd inat., came imOer my notice, contuininj; a letter from the Rev. .John Davis, one of the Council, dated April h, 1 868. It in satisfactory to me that all that is in the foregoing papi'^r respecting the ('hurch's rejection of the Coimcirs decision was written as it now stands, before the appetirance of the Extra. Did I desire to answer Mr. Davis' letter, I do not know that I could do so much more directly than is done in the remarks on tLe subject, written whih; ignorant of its existence. W iien I wrote the postscrifit to my Letter to the Church, and my remarks in this Memonal, I believed that an honest and intelligent man could not in a solemn judgment intentionally write one thing while he meant something else. I did not believe he could write — ••in my opinion Dr. Pryor is not guilty of immorality as charged," or — •• I acquit him of dishonest and fraudulent intention," &c., unlesK those declarations truthfully expressed his honest belief. As little could I imagine that an honest man, havitig acquitted Dr. Pryor o*' dishonest and fraudulent intention, and having recommended the Chuich to reconsider the action on that charge, by which they had suspended him from fellowship, could have made that recommendation with any but one purpose, — that is, that the Church, accepting the judgment of acquittal, should rescind their sentence of condemnation. When, therefore, the Christian Messenger affirmed that there were members of the Council who gave a construction to the decision opposed to these self-evident truths, the necessary alternative was that either the statement was untrue, or, that members of the Council had acted as fools, or as knaves. I believed the former to be more likely. From Mr. Davis' letter, I tjiderstand that I was mistaken. I, then- fore, apologize to Mr. Selden, tor having believed that it was more ikely that he should say what was untrnd, than that the Rev. Mr. Davis, as one of the Councillors, should •' befool " or •• beknave " hinisclt. It is, however, to be remarked, that the letter has not been produced, which, in Noveniber, 1867, Mr. Jjelden said he had received, and whicii was the occasion of my remarks. A letter written in April, 1868, by Mr. Davis, may be sufiicient to place the Keve^end gentleman in the category he seems emulous of occupying, but does not meet the case as between Mr. Selden and me. Mr. Davis confuses things essentially different, and the venom, in his observations, is derived from that confusion. He confuses the charges of immorality stud fraud, with the charges of want of discre- tion and incompetency, etc. xtru o/ th«^ !, contiiiniii;ir ted April K, n^' |>ap.'r was written 1 I desire to > iDuch inun; written whil.; I'eh, Hiid my d intelligent e one thing >uld write — charged," or ' &e., unlesK 'f. As little Dr. Pryor o" mended the ich they had itnmendatior ccepting the ndetnnation. there were the decision ive was that Council had more likely. 1. I, then- t was nior«; . Mr. Davis, e " hiniseh. n produeefi, I, and whieii ■il, 1868, by Jman in the eet the ease 5 venom, in anfuses the ' of discre- I The latter have not been the rtubjert of controversy since the doci- iott of the Council. The aiupiittul of immorality and fraud took away rom these their t^hief Hignitituintu^ and weight; for want of discretion ithout immorality, and incompetency and negligencte without fraudu- iit purpose, are errors so light when comparttd with thost* graver liargcs wliiith aflect moral character, that no (u>mplaint has be(ui lade against the (;ondemnatiou of the Council, in relation to these, 'he ac(|uittal claimed could only relate lo immorality and fraud. Again, under the same confusion ot ideiis, Mr. Davis has failed to lotice that the Church did not refuse to rescin Vhich^ iil ^h^vCOi^sulerati^n of this ca been so long banished.' * •* '..*,', ."* • I * '. ' Dr. Pryor having applied to his 'forniei' tJlmrch at Cambridge fqr admission, they, while confiding in their former long and well-tried experience of him as their pastor, and while respecting the opinion of .••1 /•■^ $1^ If tho Ilalifiix Gounoii, yot, with thut disruitioil' which -h roHHiHtoiit wifli (Parity, sought the opihion of ex|M'ruii('ert : — 'r Camiiiiiuoi:, SSth J,\^fUAKV, IHfiS. 3'he rolrewiMj; UcNolutioiiH oinbody the HCMitiinents of a conference of miniNtorH, wkose HiftnntiireK nro iippondod, in reforeiurc to n Mubjeot presctitcd liefore tlu'in for jfl^ek ndvtco, by tlio BtiptiMt Ciuu'ch in Old Canibridj^o. Bakon Stow, Chairman, Austin J. Coolidob, Secrelarff. In view of nil the facts now presented for our considorntion, we, the undcrsijfned, ■ arc cVMtrl y of opinion : — 1. That wc linve no occahiou to i^o behind tho duciHion of the Mutual Council whiili uiiuiiiin()ii-.|y iicc(|nitU'(l tlu' Hcv. Dr. I'ryor (ifnil criniinality in act or iiitcnr, itiid thus put liint lict'orc tliu pulilic its a man unjustly censured by the (ir:iiivillc Street Bajttist Ohurcli. * ^ 2. That the iTpudiation liy the saiti Cluircli of the tindiujj; of that Council, in ihiKrant violation ot an implied promise to abi^e by its tinding, together with their subsequent proceedings, manifestly unwarrantod and vindictive, completely nbiiolves all oth?r Baptist ('hurches f'roui obligation, to respect their disciphnary action in the case of Dr. I'ryor, as valid on any grounds, cither of courtesy, «»r deuominntional usage. ' ;J. That should any regular Baptist Church receive Dr. I'ryor into their fellow- ■ shij), wc could (leteml their action as every way righteoiis and honourable. Hauo.n Stow, I). l>. KoLMN H. Nkalk, I ).!)., I'ustor, Ist Church Bomtou. ;^ William S.vmson, D.D., " Urookline Church. * SuMMKit R. Mason, 1>.I.)., " 1st Cnmbridgo Church. ' Dakiel C. Eddv, I). I)., " St. Baptist Church. G. W. CtArdnkh, U.I) . " Charleston, Ist Church. •■■'■^ To thtt^jai^y the exatninaul W. HOWK, C. \V. Amahlk, W. V. Garner, W. H. S. Vkh/ri^ W. HA«tf|t,D.aHu:.. liroudwuy (jhurch, Cambridjpi. " Old Caui bridge laiurch. , '' (.WKJJ^iiftghiirch, Boston. £ • : •'! : riySle BwAC fSat^Uff. Cbnrch- 21-**i ". ^UriVmifAfAuS Church, Boston, ^*V watcrtoiv^Churfth.** MM I . l f ill Unitfu w u i /K iii M t'^ !P^, ••• • '*•**'*.* • Juiilife^e nrewntedT from being present bv; ititutior rd(Afdi« at Newto^t Tiieolo{ JlovEY, D.D.yProf. Pa8\rheo)ogy, NeStpn Theo. Institute. O. B((^a(8, D^ Pastor, NeiUon/Baptist Cnfc J. C. WiUXBMAM, " XortlnS&inbridge Baptist Church. t r- ■ ,-'•»*': ith