4<^f lIUuiuJL-ij ■ J. " .. L l-Jit.^ii, ulit^ i {Printed /or PrtimW Ctrcul^iw^^ onh,) GRANVILLE STREET CHjyRQI HALIFAX, N. S. BY THE HON. J. W' JOHNSTOK, Sitlrge fn Ssufto. ■» ■t-^>'' {^Printed for Private Circulation on/y,) LETTER '> TO THE GRANVILLE STREET CHURCH, ^ «- '•V. A^ HALIFAX, N. S. ' "'St* f ■4i^ . I& ..>^. #• ,. «■ «fi * ■• * • BY THE HON. J. W. JOHNSTON, ■f$> , ■?/ HALIFAX: PRINTED AT BABNES' STEAM PRESS. 1867. '# ••i i ■^. ? #• ■^ *l A '•tv ■ •• • • * • • • *• • ■» • • •• • • • • I J* , «« 4 •« * « • • « • • • • • • * *ir ■t {Pmited for Private Circulation only.) ■'■ LETTER (To l^e pastor, ^eacons, nnb Pem^ers of tht (JlranbiUe Street baptist l@burcb at Paltfaie. It is about forty years since the Granville Street Baptist Church at } IIalifa:t was formed, principally by individuals who had then recently separated from the communion of the Church of England, and during all that long perift liad been enabled to reach a more favourable jiid<,'iuent than they \w\ arrived at. On tho other hand, no more odious tribunal can be iinaginod than an Independent Church, where the nK^mlx-rs are lifted up with self-conceit, inflamed by pride, obstinate in 8(;lf-will, or irritated hy real or supposed a^jgresslons on their own importance into a vindictive and spiteful temper. Such a tribunal exhibits everything that h hate- ful to justice; — where accusers and judges are tho same individuals; where inflamed passions and excited i)rejudices receive gratili(\atioii in tho condemnation of tho accused; where the rides that reason and experience have sanctioned for tho faithful adiuinistrution of justice, are rejected with contempt as too worldly for Christian rule; and the mild and considerate teachings of the Gospel are set aside under pretext of zeal for religion; — a tribunal, where the plea of conscience conceals the real springs of action, and where it is forgotten that conscience, to be a safe guide, must be well instructed and well dir^JCted. A more rc[)ulsive embodiment of arbitrary power can hardly exist. Hence the value, — the necessity, — for the piX)tection of mend)ers of Churches, but more especially of ministers, of the Ecclesiastical Council, by which tho judgment of discreet and impartial men of Christian character, unaffected by the prejudice and passion that are liable to invade a Church on occasions of excitement, may be inter- posed to avert evils the most serious in their consequence to indivi- duals, to the Church, and to religion. 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. An arrogant and self-willed Church may in most cases be beyond the reach of legal restraint, in the exercise of ecclesiastical tyranny. But no Church can maintain itself long against the judgment of those with whom it is associated, if that judgment be upright, and bo firmly asserted, and vigorously ui)held. Will the Baptists of these Provinces view this question in the light of reason, justice, and Christian charity, and give manly and cnqdiatic utterance to their opinion ? This is a question of no ordinary importance. I turn to the other branch of the subject, being that which now directly concerns tlio immcdiato object of this paper. ITcro it is luicoiisary to review the action of tlio Church in many particularR, — it will ltt>- more correct to sny, — the conduct of certain of the male niiiiihrr.s, who have controlled and directed the others, and to whom uiy observations tiiroughout ore chiefly directed, althonj»h the paper in point of form is necessarily addressed to the whole Church. Firsf, — The exclusion of Dr. I'ryor from his pulpit, on the first Sunday after the occurrence that gave rise to the investigation, was a harsh and unjust act which led to the most injurious consequences *▼* to him. At the Church meeting my son, Mr. James Johnston, proposed the ^ correct course, — viz., that the pastor should not ho interfered with in his pastoral relation, in the immature and imperfect state of the case. » '^Ilis proposal was vcln^mcntly put down. My proposition was that ^*^^M some of the Deacons should next morning visit Dr. Pryor, ascertain his views, and act as far as possible in harmony. This, too, was *' overruled, and a letter was sent to inform Dr. Pryor that his pulpit would bo filled by another minister. The reason assigned was that some members of the Church and congregation were so excitc«l, that if he officiated they woidd leave the Meeting House. It is not pro- bal)le that tlie apprehension would have been realized had the proper means been used to avert it ; but had it been otherwise, the Church rras not justified in doing a wrong to their pastor in subserviency to the excited feelings of any individuals. As it was, the consequences were cruel and unjust to Dr. Pryor in the extreme. Abroad, it was universally inferred that the Church had decided on his guilt ; in evidence of this you had from INIrs. Pryor's lips a deeply touching incident ; — and the impression made by this act of the Church coloured to Dr. Pryor's great prejudice everything subsequent. But this was far from all. Some of his friends animadverted severely on this act; this led to recrimination, out of which grew an acrimonious hostility to Dr. Pryor, personally, to which may be traced the earnestness of desire for his conviction and degradation apparent throughout the proceedings, and so signally illustrated by the rejection of his vindica- tion by the Council, and by the rancor exhibited in the pages of the Christian Messenger. When Mr. Selden told Dr. Pryor that his son-in-law was his worst enemy, be revealed the effect on his own mind of the circumstances I have alluded to, and which he afterwards manifested in a flagrant ■ manner. This injustice to Dr. Pryor was aggravated by the fact, that 8 although at the iiieeting to which allusion has been made, it was distinctly declared that exclusion from the pulpit was not adopted on the assumption of guilt, and was not designed to convey the idea that the Church esteemed their pastor guilty, yet the effect was to convey that idea to the world, in a manner the most extensive and distressing. It is true, there was much in the suddenness and nature of the circumstances to palliate some error of judgment in this instance ; there was nothing, however, to extenuate the rejection of the proposal to consult Dr. Pryor before acting in a case so deeply affecting his interests, and the feelings of himself and his friends ;— a proposal which, had it been adopted, would probably have led to harmony of action, and have averted the consequences that followed upon the course that was pursued. Secondly, — The examination of witnesses by the Committee in the absence of Dr. Pryor, was an outrage against the fundamental principles of justice and British jurisprudence, deliberately persevered in, after remonstrance and warning, for as soon as I heard that witnesses had been examined in Dr. Pryor's absence, I earnestly besought Mr. Selden to induce his fellow-committee men to abandon 80 unjust a course. When I saw him again, he told me that he had mentioned my objection, but the Committee declined altering the practice they had adopted. The evidence thus taken and reduced to writing was that upon which he was judged, and which, in the Church and out of it, has been constantly referred to as containing irrefragable testimony of guilt ; and yet it was utterly worthless — worthless judici- ally, and essentially worthless. Evidence taken in a man's absence may suffice to put him on trial ; but when he comes to be tried, the evidence given before the Grand Jury cannot be breathed to his prejudice, and the Grand Juror who heard it cannot sit on his trial. How men born to the privilege of freemen could a ..nifest this igno- rance of, or this indifference to first principles, may well be matter of surprise; unless, indeed, the same answer be given that I had to listen to, when at Church meetings I ventured to allude to the Rules of Evidence framed for the protection of the accused, — that the Church of Christ has nothing to do with human law, — an admirable reason, it might be, if law were urged to the prejudice of a brother on trial, but assuredly a wretched one when analogy to the law is advanced in his protection ; unless, indeed, the Divine Legislator had a less delicate sense of justice, and less consideration to guard against improvident condemnations than human law-givers ! To such absurdities, and worse than absurdities, do ignorance and self-sufficiency lead men. Tlie Council refused to receive your ex parte evidence, and when the witnesses were brought face to face witli the accused, the practical difference was apparent ; the statements of the three most important witnesses before the Council — Christian, Purdy, and Mrs. Baxter, — were shown from their own mouths to be entirely unreliable, so that no impartial man of ordinary intelligence could give them any the slightest weight in the scale; and the evidence of another witness, Mrs. Evans, which had an adverse bearing when given in Dr. Pryor's absence, was entirely changed in its character when he elicited from her a few simple explanations; and again the suspicion intended to be excited by the answer of the carpenter to a malignant cpiestion \)\\t by your clerk, was dissipated by his answer to a single enquiry of Dr. Pryor, which his cognizance of the circumstances enabled him to make. Under the weight of this ex parte evidence, Dr. Pryor has been t*^attompted to be borne down, and he still suffers from its influence on the minds of many who have read it, or to whom its contents have been retailed ; and you have added to all the wrong connnitted by its means this further offence, that you have ventured to bring it as a charge against the Council that they refused to allow you to read from it the statements* , of a witness, who, you allege refused to attend personally. Thirdly, — You are chargeable with a failure of duty of the most serious nature, in not calling a Council at an early stage of the transaction, aggravated by the fact, that at a meeting of all the deacons with Dr. Pryor, the propriety of calling a Council was agreed on, and the deacons engaged to recommend the measure to the Church. I have so fully gone into the particulars on this head, in a previous paper addressed to the Church, that I need say little here. Suffice it, that the deacons, without Dr. Pryor's consent, did not fulfd their engagement with him, and their excuse was the opposition to the calling of a Council manifested by the members of the Church. If this excuse was not a valid one, then was I grossly deceived by Mr. Seldeu and Dr. Parker ; for on their representation I acted in not moving for a Council, and in consenting to adopt a different course. But I had abundant evidence on various occasions of the hostility existing among the members of the Church to the calling of a Council, to satisfy me that in this particular they did not deceive me. The interposition of a Council at that early stage would have been of vast value. The hostility of the Church had not yet been intensified by the'r own action, and the opposition which grew out of that action; and it may be hoped that then the proceedings before a Council would 10 have been free from the unworthy .antagonism afterwards manifested, and its judgment received in a better spirit than subsequently was the case, when pride was interi)osed to sustain opinions already formed and expressed. The judgment of a Council in favor of Dr. Pryor ■would then have had no conflict opposed to it by any formal judgment declared by the Church, and if the judgment had been adverse, the heavy blow would have come not directly from their hands. Here, then, was opportunity for doing to their pastor all the justice the circumstances admitted of, and for rendering to his many near relatives and friends, members of the Church, duo consideration and Bympatliy. No duty opposed itself to this course. The Divine blaster would assuredly not have judged you unfaithful in seeking aid from Christian men of approved character, and freer than you could possibly be from exciting influences. He would not have condemned, as opposed to his own gracious example and precepts, the tenderness of spirit which prompted the transfer to others better qualified than yourselves, of a duty which might most painfully affect your own Church members whom it was your custom tO,.8tyl^ brothers and sisters. / *> w ■ ^ Had this measure been adopted, it may safely be said that a large amount of evil would have been avoided. Why was it not adopted? There may have been extenuation for the hasty exclusion from the pulpit ; there can be no extenuation for the opposition to the calling of a Council. "Why, then, I repeat, was a Council not called at a time when the measure would have been so proper, beneficial, and expedient ? To me, who heard the self-satisfied contrasts drawn by different members of the Church between the wisdom land ability that dwelt in Granville Street Church, and anything that could be expected from ministers, the answer is but too obvious. Whatever the cause, the consequences have been fatal. Fourthly,— The refusal of a Council in the Vass matter, after the other question had been disposed of, and your conduct in that business generally. The observations on the last head are in great measure applicable here. The accounts had been examined, and certain errors ascer- tained. The only question remaining for the Church w^as — whether or not these errors, as far as they had been prejudicial to Miss Vass, had been intentional and fraudulent,— a question, certainly, not inap- propriate for ministers. The judgment you gave that the errors against Miss Vass, which I 11 »pi)oarctl in Dr. Pryor's accounts, were the result of a fraudulent desi-fu ; when tlio same accounts exhibited errors ajjainst himself of a very large amount, and his utter inability to keep such accounts correctly, was manifest ; — showed the determination of your minds to extract evidence of guilt from circumstances, which in justice, no less than in charity, demanded your sentence of acquittal I low fit you were, impartially, to consider so difficult and delicate a question, may bo judged from your conduct in the other particulars relating to this 1 .siness. Dr. Pryor had been induced to take charge of her affairs on the representation that she held her property ultimately for religious and benevolent purposes ; and they desired that he would manage it as he would his own ; he had thrown on him, in this way, the superinten- y 4*''g o^ ^''^ finishing of one large, and the erection of two other expensive dwclling-honses, and of finding the necessary funds as they were required. All this was accompanied by her own assurance, made, and often repeated, not to him only, but to many others, and to myself, in a manner the most distinct and effective, — that one, at least, of the n^w houses should be the property of Dr. and Mrs. Pryov, and be ocoupied by them as their own. She violated this promise after a couple of years, and demanded rent, without even the excuse of inaccurapies in his accounts, for she knew not of them at the time. Foi* this you had no rebuke, although she, equally with Dr. Pryor, was a Church member. But worse than this ; when the relation of the parties had been ' changed and her promise violated, you refused, as far as your will extended, to allow him to change his attitude, and chrrge commission or other recompense for all his trouble, risk and anxiety ; nay more, you rejected his charge for sums actually paid by him for raising funds to carry on the necessary business ; and, to crown all, in the affair of Mrs. Howard's purchase, which offered you a specimen of what Dr. Pryor had to endure as her agent, one of the Committee on the accounts, with an inexplicable perversion of intellect and moral perception, charged him with dishonesty, in crediting her with £100 more tb.an he received, or she was entitled to ; and another of them declared that he saw moral wrong in this conduct. Of Miss Vass' deportment as a witness before the Council, I shall say nothing beyond this, that several of you were present, and saw how entirely it baffied all my powers to extract from her either a denial or^ affirmance, or any other intelligible statement of the conver- ft 12 sation I alleged to have passed between her and myself in relation to her property, and her assurances in favor of Dr. and Mrs. Pryor. Fifthly, — Injustice to Dr. Pryor, breach of faith with me, and want of Christian charity in demanding the renewal of the charge of im- morality after that charge had been fully disposed of. Having considered this subject in my former paper, I shall abbreviate my present remarks. I agreed to the resolution excluding Dr. Pryor from the Pastorate, on the ground of want of discretion, but 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 neccessarily implied under- standing that the charge was thus finally disposed of. The Church afterward ratified the statement of Mr. Selden, and Dr. Parker, by adopting an amendment which I moved for the expressed purpose q^ removing from the rescdt ion, ambiguity as to Dr. Pryor's innocence. Yot when I moved for a C ancil on the Vass matter, it was demanded of me as a condition that I should consent to the charge thus previ- ously disposed of being ag'iin opened for investigation and adjudication. This conduct involved the violation of three principles of the first importance. 1st. It trampled on the rule of judtice which every Englishman acknowledges, by seeking to try Dr. Pryor anew on a charge on which he had already been tried, and acquitted of the higher offence, and severely punished for the lesser. This was a wrong against Dr. Pryor. 2nd. Toward me it was a flagrant breach of good faith by violating the conditions upon which my assent to the resolution of exclusion from the Pastorate had been induced. 3rd. It was an ofTence against Christian charity, by needlessly, renewing the consideration of a subject painfully distressing to many of your own Church members, and so it was a wrong to them. I look under all this to find the motive, — the spirit, — the temper of mind that was at work, for thus we attain the clue to much of your conduct, throughout this transaction, that is inconsistant with any idea of Christian charity. Christian men we may imagine would not find pleasure in renewing such an investigation, or gratification in the hope of being able to inflict a still more fatal blow on an already crushed and suffering man, and yet greater pain and humiliation on his nearest relatives and dearest friends, members of their own church. The pretext offered at the time, that the two charges were connected was unfounded, for there was no connection between them, or similarity in any of their circumstances ; and the insincerity of the pretext is further shewn l)y an admission made by Mr. Selden, that long pre- S|.-v¥. 13 ftioushj the condemnatory resolution on the Vass matter had been prepared, so that the renewed investigation of the former charge was not needed for the elucidation of the latter. Besides, if the pretended connection was any reason, it existed equally when the resolution ac(iuitting from guilt on the charge of immorality was passed, and could therefore offer no excuse for passing over that resolution to renew the consideration of its subject matter. Nor was it then asserted that new evidence had been discovered. What then could prompt the desire to renew the consideration of such a question, thus definitively settled and adjudicated? Not duty, that had been fulfilled. "Heaven born love" could not have been the controlling principle, for love sickens at the sight. The blood hound, called off from his prey, pants to renew the pursuit, — it is his tinct. liut a Church of Christ, thus seeking needlessly, worse than "^eedlosfily, to exercise a cruel authority, is a melancholy example of Ihe corrupting infiuence of irresponsible power, — of the dominion of pride and self-will over justice and charity. It was for this act that I determined to separate from Church relations with you. You have since given others and yet stronger Reasons why I shonld do so. Surely none will be surprised that the relatives and friends of Dr. Pryor should withdraw from a connection which subjects them to the mockery of being styled " Brothers and Bisters " by those who have trampled on the plainest principles of right, and it \yould almost seem for the purpose of wounding and insulting them. Whatever right Dr. Pryor or the Association may have had to fenew the consideration of the circumstances, — you had none. ■ SixthIy,-^The want of candor and truthfulness at the Association in itelation to the calling of a Council, manifested by Messrs. Selden, and Beckwith, and afterward adopted by a solemn act of the Church. In my former paper I fully explained this charge, and the proof by which it was sustained. I mention it now in illustration of the spirit »nd conduct pursued in connexion with the subject under consideration, and as bearing on my own relations with you. Seventhly, — The partiality and prejudice against Dr. Pryor mani- fested in the proceedings. You are aware that I often complained at the Church Meetings, of the unfair conduct of some of the most active of you in the prose- cutions ; of the earnestness exhibited to find occasion of charge against Dr. Pryor, and the dull ear turned to what made in his favour. Take as examples the time spent in trying to extract something prejudicial 14 in the case of the notes of Rulfind and McVane, after their continued indebtedness to Miss Vass, (l^y reason of Dr. I'ryor having puid the moiKiy to vvitlidraw their notes,) had been made apparent ; and the perversity with whicli fraud was endeavoured to be fixed on liim iu the case of Mrs. Howard's purchase. In both cases tlio eiforts to injure Dr. Pryor were cliihlisli in the last degree ; but in that they only manifested the more clearly the spirit and disposition of his judges, while in the matter of the erroneous charge against himself in the loan to Wilson, it was shown how hard was the entrance into the sa^^ne minds of anything favourable. But on this head I ne«d not go farther than the exhibition made by Mr. Selden, when Dr. Pryor, before he withdrew from the meeting of the Church, and while they had to consider and decide on interests the dearest and most sacred to a man, had made his final explanation, and had avouched his innocence with a solemnity surely entitled to consideration when opposed to suspicion, and in terms that might%ate touched the hardest heart, and quelled the bitterest hostility. Mr. Selden, being in the chair, at the instant he finished, rose, and poured out a torrent of invective, charging Dr. Pryor with being' the author of his own misfortune, and him and his friends with having unjustly assailed !"ul aspersed the Church. Here was a judge, bringing himself and his brother judges into antagonism with the accused, arousing their prejudices, and inflaming their passions at the most critical moment, and, as fjir as in him lay, crushing out the eflfect of the address which Dr. Pryor had just made. In a court of law the judge would have warned the jury, on the sacredness of their oath, that every hostile feeling was to be subdued, every prejudice brought into subjection, no outside stories I'egarded,— and shall we listen to the slander, — that courts of law have a sense of justice, and a humane respect for the rights and interests of accused persons, which the Church of Christ is at liberty to disregard ? Mr. Selden was obviously not fit to be a judge iu the case. It needed hlgh-mlndedness and enlargement of soul, to keep in subjec- tion the motions of pique, and the stirrings of wounded pride ;— and he failed. Nor was he alone of Dr. Pryor's judges thus unfit for impartial judgment. You heard Mr. Ackhurst say how he had been taunted,—" You dare not find Dr. Pryor guilty," had been said to him ;— and your clerk, Mr. Eaton, how he, too, had been taunted, and by members of the Church, because at first not prompt and de- cided (Enough.— an offence for which he has since assuredly atoned. The feeling of opposition was ever showing itself among certain of V :i 15 you, in a manner too distinct to be mistaken, and you remember I ■oadc this cliarge, and named the individuals in their presence ; and almost every resolution reveals this antagonism, by the extreme earn- estness displayed to set the Church in the right, and Dr. Pryor in the wrong. It remains to consider the conduct of the Church in relation to the Council. After the arrangement made between the deacons and Dr. Pryor respecting a Council had failed, and after my failuie to obtain f a Council wlicn only the Vass charge remained unsettled, the Associa- tion made its recommendation. The scrupulous caution shown by the Church as regarded the selec- tion of the Council, I thought nruch beneath the conduct that ought to govern such a body. It wo aid have been dignified and Ci.fistian- li] ! to have said to Dr. Pryor, "■ Choose your own Council, and if they are meji of character and standing In the Denomination, we will accept tjiemj and rejoice to receive their judgment if they shall concur in believ- ing you innocent." Instead of this, you acted the part of keen litigants, and imposed on Dr. Pryor your own basis of Council ; and when he failed to .concur in your conditions, you, without his concurrence selected and invited a Council of five ; and as you thought yourselves justified in taking ex parte evidence, so you deemed yourselves author- ized to have ex parte judges. Dr. Pryor resisted your authority thus to deal with the momentous interests which he had at stake, and the Council declined to act without his consent. Through their inter- vention Dr. Pryor submitted to every condition comprised in your basis, except as to the number, and a Council of twelve was agreed on. You chose the five who had formed your ex parte Council, with the addition of one other. The skill displayed in long preambles, and adroit resolutions, and bases of Council, did not desert you in the choice of your members. You had succeeded in excluding one individual whom Dr. Pryor thought well fitted for the office from the character of his mind, and from his being extensively known beyond, as well as within the Province ; and in your own selection I noticed that you had avoided men acquainted with Dr. Pryor's early labors in promoting the educa- tional and religious interests of the denomination ; and that but two out of the six could be exposed to the sympathies that you might dread from early acquaintance and recollection. These six, selected from the three Provinces, with the six chosen by Dr. Pryor from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, met. Granville Street Church was represented by a committee of its members appointed for the purpose, mki 16 and Dr. Pryor was assisted by Rev. Dr. Crawley, Professor DeMill, my son Jamos, and myself; my sod and I being members of the Church. The Council, being organized, before proceeding to business, form- ally inquired if Granville St. Church acknowledged the Council. Your representatives, or such as were present, answered in the aflirm- ative, as did Dr. Pryor when the like question 'va» put to him, You were reijuired to give in your charges, which you did in writing, I gave in written charges against the Church, or those who had been active in the prosecution, which [ withdrew in consoipience of the Council thinking that their functions did not extend beyond the com- plaitits of the Church and Dr. Pryor against each other. Your witnesses were produced, examined, and cross-examined, ami afterwards Dr. Pryor and his witnesses. At the close, Mr. Ran(l,aiid Mr. Eaton your clerk, addressed the Council on behalf of the Church, and Dr. Crawley on behalf of Dr. Pryor. These proceedings occu- pied, I think, six working days from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m., excepting meal hours, and one day, when the evening session was not held. The seventh day the Council devoted to deliberation, and in the even- ing delivered their unanimous sentence in writing, signed by eleven, the twelfth, Rev. Mr. McKenzie, having been obliged to return to St, John shortly before the close of the proceedings. He was one of the six selected by Dr. Pryor, and I understand that he has since desired his name to be appended in approval of the judgment, so far as covers the charges on which he heard the evidence. The proceedings on the part of the Council were conducted with perfect regularity and order, and were marked throughout by mode- ration, great firmness, and strict impartiality. I have scarcely ever, if ever, seen a court better conducted in all these particulars. The Church had no cause to complain that Dr. Pryor was not prosecuted with all possible energy and zeal, or that any advantage was lost through the modesty, delicacy, or moderation of the two principal managers, Mr. Rand and Mr. Eaton. "With a long experience, I do not hesitate to say that I have seldom, I think I may say, never, seen a criminal prosecution involving anything like analogous interests, pressed with so much vehemence, and so little consideration for the feelings and interests of the accused. My soul burned with indigna- tion as I listened to the addresses of these two individuals, particularly the younger of :hem, and I felt how much they outraged the mode- ration and fairness that a respectable crown officer would in a like case have observed in a court of law. w 17 Yoti have darod to trample under your feet the sentence of thin Council, and remember, of your own six selected men, — and to act in detlanco and contempt of their judgment and advice, and I have desifftH'dly narrated tliose det'xils that I mifrht, with those before your eyes, more emphatically ask, as I asked at the last Chuich meetin<4 that I attended, but asked in vain : — What did you mean by this conduct? Why the basis of Council ? Why tlie guarded precautions in the selection of aCojncli? AV^hy the ^x parte Council? Why the I.irger Council, in both cases separated from their homes, their duties and their business, at no small cost and inconvenience ? W^hy openly and .without (jualification acknowled«;;e the Council ? Why assemble your witnesses ? Why sedulously devote six days to the investiijation of testimony? Why address the Couiunl ? Why assem- ble to receive their sentence ? You would not, you could not answer me, when I looked you in the face and asked such (piestions as these. I will answer for you ; — "We hoped to add to the weight of our judgment against our late pastor, the heavier weight of the judgment of condemnation of a Couiuiil, and so crush him hopelessly and forever in this world." Your conduct admits of no other explanation. Its language is the language of the King of Moab : — '* We called you to curse our enemy, and you have not cursed him." Dr. Pryor could not have resisted an adverse decision, and it would have overwhelmed him in utter ruin. Compared with this, a decision adverse to your views is insignificant in its effects on you. It crosses your self-will, and wounds your pride, — no more. Justice and honor demanded of you an c(iual submission to the judgment of your severally chosen Council that Dr. Pryor must have rendered, and at so much heavier cost ; unless indeed, the Church of our Lord in their dealings with their ministers and members, are freed from those restraints of equity and truth which men of the world in their dealings with one another respect. If justice and honor have been outraged by your conduct, no less deeply has Christian charity been wounded. The opportunity was afforded you of shewing, even at this latest period, some measure ot consideration for the interests and feelings of one who had once held the sacred relation of your pastor, and of others who had been bound to you in the ties of Church fellowship ; and that too, without the aacrifice of duty, or the surrender of opinion. Instead of this, by refusing deference to the opinion and advice of the Council, you have added to the evidence afforded throughout the previous proceedings, 2 18 that personal hostility had interwoven itself with all your springs of action, and that your ucIh inuteud ot being the culm impartial decisioD of upright Christian Judges, have been influenced by pride and resent- ment. Ze-'l for religion and the purity of the Church is a plea easily mad*^ , and is one, under which, — it may be consciously or uucorisci- ously, — self-will, and many of the worst passions of our nature find abundant scope and indulgence. In this case it cannot avail. A large Council, after patiently hearing all the evidence, found Dr. I'ryor not to have been guilty of immorality and fraud with which ho was charged ; and they recommended your reconsideration of the reso- lution which you had passed suspending fellowship with him. But they also censured him for a " want of discretion " in the one case, and for want of proper care in the other, and yon had alreadj removed him from the pastorate on the ground of that " want of discretion." Thus religion was vindicated and the purity of the Church main- tained as far as the facts in the judgment of the Council warranted; and although you maintained your first opinion, and believed that the Council ought to have gone further in condemnation, yet as you do not, I believe, claim infallibility, and as wisdom does not dwell only in Granville Street Church, it would not seem to have been an unreasonable sacrifice made to modesty and decorum, had you adopted the supposition that you might be wrong, and the Council right. But if such a deference to the opinion of any does not become Granville Street Church, then the question recurs: — "Why call a council to review a judgment that was unalterably fixed ? And when you did do so in professed respect to the recommendation of the Association, cv nmon honesty would seem to have required that you should have explained the position you occupied. This was due to the Association, to the Council, and to Dr. Pryor. Having failed to make this expla- nation ; and especially having failed to do so when publicly recognizing the Council ; the same principle of ordinary honesty required your submission 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. Pryor. I can scarcely imagine anything more disreputable than this conduct towards Dr. Pryor. To bend the most energetic eflforts to procure his condemnation,— a condemnation the most ruinous, and when the .brethren selected to be judges unanimously acquit him, to do all in 19 your power to defraud him of the benefit of the acquittal, is evidenco of a low and perverted standard of moral sentiment, almost incredible. I havo not yet noticecl the resolution by which you attempt to vindicate your conduct. '*'" Some of it I do not understand ; and some of it is too puerile for notice, and it is pervaded by the same uncandid and partisan spirit that may bo found in almost all your recent Church records. Whatever expressions the president, or any member of the Council made, after the decision of the Council had been read, were referable only to themselvcH, and if they had borne the import imputed to them, — which, however, was not the case as far as my remembrance and apprehension extend, — yet they could not affect the opinions of other members, or change the character of the written sentence. Better far, and more becoming men professing to be Christians, would be a bold, defiant rejection of the Council's decision, than this tortuous and fraudulent attempt at evasion. The remarks that there was evidenco in the case of Mrs. M , which the Council rejected or did not use, are the result of ignorance. The statement of Dr. Pryor, which is referred to, was not evidence that the Council could use to his prejudice. It was *» statement of innocent purposes and acts on his part ; and none but the merest tyro could imagine that while standing alone and uncontradicted, any other purposes or acts could be inferred from it than those which it expresses. The observations respecting the rejection of Margaret Robinson's testimony, and the reception of letters and certificates of character, are also founded on ignorance. The testimony was properly rejected on the established principle of justice, which forbids a man to be pre- judiced by ex parte evidence ; the letters and certificates, which prejudice no body, were receivable in support of character, under the beneficent indulgence which courts of law extend to accused persons. The resolution also complains that the Council refused to hear ** certain important rebutting testimony." This would have taken the investigation back some thirty years, and that too, in the face of the fact that the individual alleged to have been offended united at a sub- sequent period in a tribute of respect and esteem presented to Dr. Pryor on his removing from Wolfville to the United States, as appeared from his name appended to the address which was presented to Dr. Pryor on that occasion, and read before the Council in the hearing of your representatives. It commences with stating that the Baptist Church and congregation in Horton could not suffer Dr. Pryor to leave them, after his long and disinterested labor of twenty years 30 amonj^ them, without expressing thisir high OHtimatioti of his valiiallc ■ervict'H, rendered ^rutuitouBly, for so long a poriocl ; and dcop rojjret at hJH romovul ; and cIohcs with prcsonting a purso of monny, wliioli th(%' dosirc'd sliould ho (sxpendud in tho piirchuso of " Hoino uiticlt'," to uso tlit'ir own luiifjuiigo, "as a incmonto of tluj long coniinned and happy intoroouint! which had uxi.sttjd hutwecn him anecially to pass finally upon the charge of Dr. Pryor in relation to Mrs. M , no proposal was made by Dr. I'ryor, the deacons, or other meml)crs of the Church for a Council to advise upon the charges under consideration." Here is a strong affirmation, such as is used when a fact is controverted, ond the affirmation is malaincd his motives and tho reasons for his couduct on the occasion referred to, and Imving denied all criminality, a Committee was appointed, consisting of l)retlircn S. Scldon, U. N. Beckwith, T. H. Rand, U. N. Paint, and W. Ackhurst, to investigate said reports. Tho said Committee liaving 'pi-escnted their rcjwrt, consisting of the statements made to them by tlie several parties who were examined. Be it therefore resolved, That the Church are unwilling to believe, and have no positive proof of criminality in the cases mentioned in the evidence given, and as opposed to suspicions, we have the tried character of our pastor, as a minister of the Gospel, tlirough a long scries of years, and his faithful and affectionate services among ourselves, as well as his solenm denial of the present charges. The Church, however, are compelled to express their conviction that Dr. Pryor's indiscretion has been so great, as appears by tho evidence, and by his own statement, that we regard It as having destroyed all hope of his further usefulness as a pastor in connection with this Church. Resolution passed May 30th : — Whereas, On the 27th of April tho brethren in meeting assembled, in presence of Dr. Pryor, who assented thereto, did appoint a Committee, consisting of bretliren E. G. W. Greenwood, George Fraser, and Horatio Vaux, for the purpose of invcs- tiKatmg certain charges made by Miss Vass against Dr. Pryor, and also the d.n.culty existing between brother John McVcan and Miss Vass. and Dr. Pryor aa her agent. And Whereas, Tho said Committee, after receiving a list of said charges, and the books and papers, furnished by Dr. Pryor, containing the account! between 35 Wii» ViWH iinil Dr. Pryor, nnd ftHHontcfl to hy them ncvcrally, uh rcitroscnfin^' mi\ «ccount« correctly, hiivo jfivcn Maid IiooIch nnd papcru a most patient, rarcfiil, nnd ieanliinK exaniiiintion, and after plating tho rcHiilts of tlicir InvcstiKntions iK-foro Dr. IVyur, failnl to olitain from liiiii satisfactory oxplniiations of tho apparent defiiNiatioiiM, have reported to this (Miiireh the said eharj,'es, and the liasis on whieh they rust, us uxhihited hy tiie (h»eiiiiients phieed in their hands by the Uev, Dr. Pryor. And Whrrmn, Tho Cluireh, havinj; heard from Dr. Pryor his cxplnnntions of laid aeeounts and ineorreet entries. Anil Whirenn, ])r. Vryor lias exj)reH<(ed hi^ entire sntisfaetion with the mn ncr in whieh tl»c Conimilteo had eondueted tiieir invostij;ation of Ids aeeounts, iw vdl as with the tiniu iiUowed hint l)y the Chiireh to jircparu his defence, road ii'. two consocutivo mectinj^s and appcnderl to tho Committoo's rcjjort. IJe it thertforc rrjiohrd, Tliut tho Cliureh (\o not consider the exj)hinatioiis sntii- fnctory, as ncconntiiij.; for tlio over<"harj;<'H and inaeeuraeios in tho aeeounts suhnut- ted, and that wliilst wo are unwiliinj; to holievo that Dr. Pryor had any intentioa ol' fraud, and wouhl still hope that further li^ht will Ik; thrown on tho matter, thoy feel that Hcvcrni of tho facts elicited arc of bo j^ravo u charaetcr, nnd apparently coiilirmatory of the charf^cs nmdo, that they diMuand of us the rulllhnent of a most painful duty — that of sus|)cnding fellowship with Dr. Pryor until Hueh lime &» he shall afford satisfactory explanation to the Church. On tho receipt of this Dr. Pryor sent tho following reply: — To thti Deacons and Memhert of GranvUU Street Uaptid Church, — I have received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of male mcmhcrs of tho Church last nij,dit, hy which I am suspended fVom tho fellowship of the Church until such time as I shall afford satisfactory explanations to tho Church. The effect of this mode of dealing with mo is at once cruel and insidtinjf. Those who have passed that resolution cannot hut know that this referonco to further explanations, is, from tho nature of tho circumstances, no better than a mockery so far as I am concerned. How far it comjwrts with candour nnd manli- ness on their part, this is not the time nor the occasion to en(|uire. In this crafty and most insidious resolution, not one word is said, nor oven a hint given, that tho mistakes were as great ngainst myself as against Miss Vass; not one word to let it be known that the Committee themselves, on further investi- gation, had requested to he allowed to alter their report, so as to show that even in one single account, that of Mr. McVcan, an error had been discovered of more than eight hundred dollars ; that instead of the mistake being upwards of $1000 it was but little over two hundred ; that on the very last day of my appearing before tho Church, an error of upwards of $70 was discoyercd, which I had, as in several otiicr instances, made against myself; thus carefully and wilf idly excluding every cxtcnu- atiug circumstance, while putting in the strongest light everything that could bo construed against me. The individuals who have passed this resolution, must also know that after the treatment I have received from them. I never could, under any circumstances, desire to renew a communion with them which they hare thus harshly l*ken, or again place myself in the hands of men, who. m the exercise of tho great iKjwer Nvhich a Baptist Church possesses, have shown how little they apprecmte those Gospel principles which were designed to regulate and "•ntro'^hat power. Under such circumstances, to retain me stih a member of |the Church m name. 36 and subject to its power, while condemned as unworthy of its privileges, is a refine- ment of cruelty and wrong. I must, therefore, require that, in common justice to me, my name be erased from your books as a member, and that the separation between us be final in thi» 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. Halifax, May 3lst, 1867. John Pryok. Dr. Pryor then appealed from this decision of the Cliurch to the Central Baptist Association. The Association voted the following : That this Association recommend the Granville Street 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. This recommendi on was approved of by Granville Street Church. The Church and Dr. Pryor then entered into negotiations respect- ing the calling of a Council, which resulted in nothing definite, owing to the inability of the parties to agree upon preliminaries. Granville Street Church then invited an ex parte Council. Dr. Pryor then sent to the Church a letter objecting to this action, and soon afterwards sent the following : — T Halifax, July 25, 1867. To the Deacons and Members of Granville Stred Church, — It being evident to rac, if not to the Church themselves, from their whole pro- ceedings, almost from the very beginning of their inquiry into the reports derogatory to my character, that they have not been influenced by any sincere desire to establish my innocence if it could rightly be done, but rather to make their first step in the case (viz., their suspending me from my pastoral duties on the Sabbath) to ap])car a lightcous act, though in aiming thus to do they must condemn nie rightly or wrongly ; and the matter being now by them narrowed down into an absolute personal hostility toward myself; and all overtures of mine being rejected, and all propositions made by me being refused by the Church ; nothing now is left for me to do, if I would have a mutual Council, but to assent to the Church's own terms and to yield to tlieir exactions. Though I do still continue to protest against the right of the Church ex parte sua to dictate to me, or to the Council, by the so-called " Basis," formed by the Church at a private meeting, of which I had no intimation, and could not, therefore, be present, though, assuredly, I was the party most deeply concerned in the pro- ceedings and results of the Council,— a body which was to have for its enquiry my reputation, dearer to me than life; still, being now, as I have been from the first, excccdi%ly desirous that there should be a Council mutually chosen in accordance with the advice of the Association, I am forced, by the action of the Church, to waive all my objections to the Basis, and to submit to the dictation of the Church. My position leaves me no alternative in the matter; and under pressure I am forced to yield up my just rights to your demands, in order that an ex parte Council may be avoided, and a Council be formed upon mutual choice. 37 I make, therefore, this concession to you, that such a Council as you propose in your Basis be formed ; only stipulating that the number composing the Council shall be enlarged — four ministers and two lay brethren to be chosen by the Church, and the same number by myself; all relatives of mine, and of that portion of the Church which has taken part in these proceedings heretofore conducted by you, to be excluded. This will form a Council of twelve, by no means too large a number, when the interests at stake, and the consequences resulting from tncir action, are considered. By this concession I shall be compelled to give np the benefits, as well to the Church as to myself, which would have resulted from the matured wis- dom, long experience, and high standing in the Denomination of the Rev. Dr. Crawley, who was the only one of my relatives, if relative he can be called, whom I had the intention of nominating to the Council. John Pktob. To this the following reply was sent: — Halifax, Jdlt 27, 1867. Rev. Sir, — Your communication of the 25th inst, relative to a Council, &c., was received yesterday afternoon, and I shall place it before the Church at the first opportunity. "* ■ ^ I am, sir, yours truly, Rev. Dr. Pkyoe. B. H. Eaton, Clerk. ..i^wfcii July 29, 1867. In accordance with the resolution I handed you a few days ago, I have now to state to you that the proposed Council will be convened in Halifiax, on Thursday, August 8th. I will notify you of the hour and place of meeting as soon as I can do so. The Council will consist of Rev. Dr. Spurden, Rev. Charles Randall, Rev, John Davis, T. R. Patillo, Esq., and Wm. Faulkner, E.'^q. Yours, &c., ■ t> ""•wrr B. II. E. To this Dr. Pryor sent the following reply : — Halifax, July 29, 1867. Brenfon IT. Eaton. Esq., — Dear Sir,— I have just received a note from you. I should be glad to be informed whether it is a private communication or whether it is sent to me by the direction and order of the Church. I can scarcely conceive it can be from the Church affr I had stated " that I would not place myself in connection with a Council, in the appointment of which I had no voice," and which " is in direct opposition to the advice of the Association." Please inform me distinctly whether your note is by order or resolution of the Church, and at what time the Church meeting was held at whicli the resolution was passed; and whether my communication respecting its ex parte Council was sub- mitted to any regularly called meeting of the Church. Yours truly, John Pryob. To this the following replies were received : — Halifax, July 30, 1867. Rev. Slr,-ln reply to your note of yesterday just received, allow me to say that my note, of which you speak, was not sent by special direction or order of the 38 Church, hut was conceived hy mc to ho rendered necessary hy the resolution previ- ously handed you, which required that you ho notified of the convening of the Council. I was nnahle, till then, to state the time at which those comprising the Council could asscmhlc. Your communication respecting an ex parte Council has not yet been submitted to any meeting of the Church, but a meeting was announced on Lord's day for Wednesday evening, at ■which I will submit it. I am, sir, yours truly, B. H. Eaton. Halifax, August 1, 1867. Rev. Sir, — I am directed to say, in reply to your communication of the 25th ult., that the lateness of its receipt and the character of its language (as well as that of the 17th ult.,) both preclude the Church from giving any further consideration to the proposals contained in it. I am, sir, yours truly, Eev. Dr. Prtor, B. H. Eaton, Clerk. The ex parte Council thus called by the Church then met at Halifax on the 8th day of August. Dr. Pryor refused to attend their meeting or to recognize their authority, and sent to each of the members a written protest against their acting in any matter affecting him, but expressing his continuous desire to unite in the mutual Council recommended by the Association. Several interviews and some correspondence then took place between Dr. Pryoi- and these gentlemen, when, at the suggestion of the latter, Granville Street Church consented to a mutual Council of twelve, and added to the five, which they had already selected, the Rev. Stephen March. ^> , Dr. Pryor selected, on his part, the Revds. I. E. Bill, A. S. Hunt, George Armstrong and W. S. McKeuzie, and James E. Rand and Abel M. AVheelock, Esqrs., forming in all a Council of twelve. This Council met at Granville Street Church on Thursday, 29th August, and organized by the appointment of the Rev. Dr. Spurden as Chairman, and the Rev. Messrs. McKcnzie and Armstrong as Secretaries. The Council, as the result of their investigation, extending over seven days, unanimously made the following deliverance, Rev. Mr. McKenzie being then absent :— DECISION OP THE COUNCIL. This Council having been called in this place in conjunction with their late Pas- tor, to consider certain difficulties which had arisen between him and them, and Mving giveii prolonged, patient, and prayerful attention to all the matters that have ueeu placed betore them, uud to the testimony and arguments in relation to these matters, deaver their judgment herein, in manner and form as follows. 39 First allhoation. — " That Dr. Pryor is jxiiilty of immorality and gross im- propriety in regard to Mrs. M. McM., and Mrs. R. M. Resolved 1. — Tliat in the oj)inion of this Council, Dr. Pryor is not guilty of im- moriility as charged in the Allegation : yet it is the same time, the opinion of this Council that Dr. Pryor has shewn great want of discretion in the character of his visits to Mrs. M. McM. Resolved 2. — That in the absence of all evidence in the case of Mrs. R. M., the Council dismiss the said case. Second Allegation. — " That Dr. Pryor is guilty of dishonest and fraudulent dealings in conducting the affairs of Miss A. Vass." Resolved 1. — That the Council acquit Dr. Pryor of dishonest and fraudulent in- tentions in his dealings as the agent of Miss Vass : but they are of the opinion that it was most unwise in him to take the management of her accounts at all, and that he is chargeable with incompetency in keeping accounts, and culpable negli- gence in not preserving vouchers. Third. — The action of the Church. Viz. : Whether the action of the Church relative to the affairs before referred to, and to Dr. Pryor, was such as should have taken under all circumstances, and if not, why not, and what course the Church should have adopted. The Council find tliat the Deacons of the Church have been accused of precipi- tancy in virtually suspending Dr. Pryor, from the exercise of his pulpit duties ou the occurrence of the unhappy incident in Pleasant Street. Resolved 1.— That the Council is of opinion, that in view of the circumstances 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 tlie discharge of the duties so suddenly devolved upon them, ought not to be charged with the vrant of affection on account of such mistakes : it nevertheless might have been better, if the Deacons had sought a personal interview with Dr. Pryor, and consult- ed with him in reference to the services of the approadiing Sabbath. The Council further find that the Church is regarded as blamcablc for having refused to call a Council at an earlier period in the history of the whole case. Resolved 1— That the Council are not able to decide upon the p;'rticular question. But in relation to the whole matter of calling a Council in critical cases of a diffi- cult nature between Pastor and people, wc are of opinion that for the mtcrcsts of all parties concerned, an advisory Council will generally be found desu-able, and that such a procedure is in harmony with the practice of the Churches m these Provinces. Resolved 2.-That in relation to the suspension of Dr. Pryor on the charge of fraudulent transactions in the affairs of Miss Vass, the Council is of opnnou after a careful examination of the whole matter, in relation to which tins Council has already delivered its decision, that it would be desirable for the Church to reconsider their action thereon. Such is the judgment on all the above points at which the Council has arrived. They would have desired to add a few sentences, embodymg though and counsel suggested by the matters which have come before them. The fme at tl--l-P- however forbids this. They may uttter somewhat in the .above way, but cannot 40 write anytlunpj further. They can only commend the late Pastor of this Church, with its Deacons and members to the care and guidance of the great Head of the Church. May he dispose, counsel, and direct them to all that is well i)lea.sing in his sight, and beneficial to his cause. May he render the efforts of the Council which is now about to be dissolved conducive to these great ends. May he at last Ijring us all to the world of purity, and rest : the members of this Council will not re- gret the toil which they have at this time been led to devote to the cause of Christ in this place, and in heaven we shall all rejoice together in the result of our common labors, and in the salvation of our common Lord. (Signed.) Charles Sitjuden, Frcdericton, N.B., President. George Armstrong, Bridgetown, N.S., Secretary. John Davis, Chnrlottctown, P.E.I. I.E. Bill, St. John, N.B. A. S. Hunt, Cornwallis, N.S. Charles Kandall, Weymouth, Digby, N.S. Stephen March, Bridgcwater, N.S. T. R. Patillo, Liverpool, N.S. James E. Rand, Cornwallis, N.S. W. Faulkner, Truro, N.S. Ahel M. Wheelock, Wilmot, N.S. Rev. "W. S. McKenzie, had to leave before the close of the proceedings. Halifax, September 5th, 1867. .i, V ■ On the 24th September, 1867, the Granville Street Church met, the following Report was adopted. * ■*' The Committee appointed by the Church, to examine the Copy of the Minutes of the Council, or any evidence obtainable by them, with a view of furnishing new facts or considerations, if any, for the information of the Church, in carrying out the recommendation of the Council, beg to report, that they have been unable to find in the minutes of the Council, and in the minutes of evidence obtained by them, any facts or considerations calculated to explain the difficulties in connexion with the series of pecuniary transactions, which have hitherto prevented the Church from entertaining a more favourable consideration of the acts of Dr. Ptyor involved in the same. (Signed.) B. H. Eaton, Secretary. D. McN. I'ARKER, Geo. Eraser. Mr. Nutting was also one of the Committee, but could not act. 3Mr. Rand still to siffn. The following Resolution was passed : — The decision of the Council with a copy of their minutes having been submitted to, and carefully considered by thi.? meeting :— /xVso/rc^.— That with respect to the recommendation which concludes the decis- ion, the Church regard it as alike due to the Council, and to Dr. Pryor that that rec- .lendation be promptly acted upon, but in approaching the reconsideration which the Council have advised, the Church is sorry to be compelled to say that they do not feel warranted in adopting the findings of the Council as their basis of re- consideration, for the following among other reasons :— \'~7^T ^°""^'^' ''' framing a moral decision, which, from the great notoriety both of the charges made, and of the vehement denial of the accused of his guilt, 41 must of necessity obtain a very wide circulation, liavc adopted the formula of the verdict of a jury instead of the unequivocal language of the deliverance of a Church Council. The decision on the first charge reads thus : " that in the opinion of the Coun- cil, Dr. Pryor is not guilty of immorality as charged in the Allegations.'' So posi- tive and emphatic an expression would naturally be understood to convey to the Church, that the Council wished it to believe that the many and suspicious facts extending over a period of three years adduced in support of the charges were ex- plicable by the Council apart from the supposition of criminality ; whereas, as pub- licly explained to the Church, by the President of the Council, it expresses the facts tiiat direct evidence of criminality was wantin,]^. The decision on the second charge " that the Council acquit Dr. Pryor of dis- honest or fraudulent intention, in his dealings as the agent of Miss Vass," would appear to express tiio conviction of tiic Council, that all the evidence in support of the charge, was explicable :by them on grounds consistent with honesty ; whereas, as publicly explained by the President of the Council to the Church, it means that dishonest and fraudulent intention was not to their minds fully proved. The decision is not correct in the case of Mrs. M , inasmuch as the Church put in evidence, and the Council received certain statements made by Dr. Pryor to a Committee of the Church, and reduced to writing, suggested by Dr. Pryor him- self, (see copy of minutes of Council, 7th Session). The decision is unaccom- panied by the evidence adduced, and does not show how the Council reached their conclusions in the face of the evidenee. The Church were anxious to be informed how the facts adduced by them in support of their charges could consist with the absence of guilt. With respect to the action of the Church, they take this oppor- tunity of saying that the decision is meagre and vague. They asked " Whether their action was such as should have been taken under all the circumstances; and if not, why not ; and what course the Church should have adopted ;" and although that action extended over a period of four months, and embraced many important points in Church government and discipline, in regard to which the Church fully expected a definitie and guiding opinion, yet only two subjects are mentioned in the decision, viz., the charge of "precipitancy in virtually suspending Dr. Pryor on the occurrence of the unhappy incident in Pleasant Street," etc., and the matter of calling a Council, on one only of which a decision was given. In regard to the former, the Council say, "whatever mistakes" the deacons may have committed, they are not, a view of the suddenness with which their duties devolved upon them, chargeable with want of affection. What mistakes did the deacons make? The Church wished, and considered themselves entitled to be specifically mformcd upon this point. 2. While investigating the charges against Dr. Pryor, the Council notwith- standing the objections of the Church thereto, adopted the procedure of courts of law, instead of that of advisory Church Councils ; but in consulcnng the ac .on o the Church, they reversed their method of proceeding. The Councd would not «d,uit the testimony given and signed by Margaret Robmson before a Comm tt«e of the Church ; wlLt at the same time they received, as evidence [-m Dr^Pryo and Dr. Crawley, purely ex parte documentary testimony m ''^^'^ ^^^''^^^^^^ character. Though conducting the proceedings after the manner of courts of law. the Council denied the Cnurch the right to «r°«^^■«^7"^ ^;; J^'j; "' .^^ Crawley in regard to a portion of the former's past life m the mmistry, or to adduce 42 certain important rebutting testimony in rofcronco thereto, notwithstanding ho and hia advocate were allowed to testify ad libitum, with respect to the spotlcssncss of Dr. Pryor's piist life. Though conducting the proceedings after the manner of courts of law, many of the Councillors were the constant guests of the accused and his advocates. The Church regret exceedingly that such obstacles stand in the way of taking the decision of the Council as their guide in this grave matter, because tho Council laboured long and patiently in their investigations, and because tho adoption of tho decision would have relieved the Church from a grave responsibility, which they now feel morally bound as a Church of Christ to assume. On the 30th of May last, the Church suspended fellowship with Dr. Pryor, until such time as he should afford satisfactory explanations of certain statements apparently confirmatory of the charges under consideration. The main question now is whether such explanation has been furnished After carefully considering all the evidence adduced before the Council, the Church are forced to conclude that it has not been furnished, and therefore they cannot rescind tlieir resolution of sus pension, and they see no prospect of any further light being thrown upon the matter. Considering these things, and the character of tho evidence adduced in support of the charge of immorality and impropriety, and Dr. Pryor's conduct during tho whole course of the proceedings relating to him, the Church have no course left, but to declare the termination of Dr. Pryor's connection with them as a member, and they do hereby withdraw fellowship fix)m him. * .^ f^^L The above resolution was moved by the Clerk, 1B. H. Eaton, and seconded by Brother Paint, and passed with one dissenting voice; September 24th 1867. „^ 4, , ^ The foregoing resolutions and letters contain everything which is believed to be necessary for the clear apprehension of this Letter. Nothing has been omitted but what affected points of comparative unimportance, or those, the substance oi A^hich is comprised in what is now published. The following are letters to which allusion is made in the foreaoinn Letter : — _, ^ „ Cambridge, Mass., January 21st, 1867. Rev. Dr. Pryor, j > My Dear Brother,— The Old Cambridge Baptist Church, after granting, at your request, a letter of dismission to yourself and Mrs. Pryor, to unite with the Church at Halifax, felt that they could not let the connection which has bound thcin to you for so many years be severed, without some special expression of the affectionate esteem with which they continue to regard you, and the regret with which they aro reminded afresh of the painful sundering of ties which are still dear to their mem- ory. After listening to remarks which breathed a spirit of the utmost kindness and affection for you personally, and of tender and judicious appreciation of your faith- fulness as pastor and friend during the whole period of your ministry among them, they requested me, by vote, to convey to you in a special letter (to accompany your letter of dismission) their sentiments of undiminished attachment and regard. 43 My dear brother, I feci how incompetent I am to do justice to the task assigned rac; for to ude(iuatcly express what I Imvc been deputed to convey to you, would require of mc to give you a trancsript of many hearts, whoso depth of emotion at sundering the lust formal tie tliat bound you and them together as members of the same visible Clmrch, souglit its only suitable expression in tears. Surely, if it be the part of a good pastor to win the hearts of his people, and to leave behind him, at his departure, lasting memorials of his influence and power, you have much to look back npon with pleasing recollection as you pass in review your connection with this Church. Tlic five years which have elapsed since you left them, have only served to mellow their attachment, which yet shows no signs of decay. Permit mc also to add my personal testimony to the universal kindness and affection with which your name has always been mentioned in my hearing during the nearly four years of my connection with this Church. And now that the pleasing relationship which for nearly seventeen years has ex- isted between you anA- this people, is broken, — with what regret on their jjart, I need not tell you, — it remains but to add the assurance of their wannest and best wishes for the happiness and prosperity of yourself and family among friends who are even older in your affection, but not more warmly attached, than tliose whom you have left behind you. In behalf of the Church, "'^ >1 .' With esteem and affection, (, ' Your brother in Christ, COUETLAND W. AnABLE, Rev. ^o. Prtor, D.D., Halifax, N.S. . Pastor. We, the subscribers, at the request of Dr. Crawley, as a friend of Dr. Pryor, the former pastor of the Baptist Church in Old Cambridge, hereby declare that we ]l were intimately acquainted with Dr. Prjor, during his residence among us, and are '" in circumstances to know fully his reputation in this place; that we have heard with inexpressible surprise and pain, the recent reports prejudicial to the charac^r of Dr. Pryor, aad that so contrary are those reports to evcrytliing whicli we have ever known or heard, or had even the slightest cause to susi)ect of Dr. Pryor, that we do not hesitate to declare, emphatically, our utter disbelief of them ; that during a residence among us of nearly twelve years, Dr. Pryor invariably bore himself as a Christian minister should.-faithful, devoted, and beloved in the Lord; that his character was above reproach, and without the slightest shadow of suspicion ; that we never heard at any time even the slightest imputation against him, m any respect, and do not believe that any exists in this community, or that there were ever any grounds or occasion for such imputation; but that, on the contrary, as expressed in the letter accompanying the letter of dismission given to Dr. Pryor, the highest confidence, esteem and affection are entertained for him as a man and a Christian minister. , , . We likewise declare that the said, letter of dismission was not passed by a party vote in the Church, no. b'^h,fo)v;indi,ViaJ«l?. but unanimously at a largely attenckd public Church meeting,' Wkh.t'hc. fullest krfowledjfc, c^sqntMpd good wilofal and further, that thc^o is not .now,.and neyer .ha, beep a division of «" 'u our Church respecting ^6^i^ pf. Dr/ Pr;,or; Mt tha< /^^ l^^^^^^.^ ^Id said letter of dLisslon'exprbsse., truthfully, tke^.mavuia ^--h^h lis hcW universally in the Church, and so far as we know, or have any reason to believe, m 44 the community, and was written hj diroction of tlie Churoli, as unanimously re- solved at the same meeting at which the letter of dismission was granted, to express to their late beloved Pastor, a rare instance, after tlie lapse of so many years, of warmly cherished affection and undiminished esteem. COURTLAND W. AnAHLE, Postor, JOSIAII COOLIUOE, ) J. B. Dana, [ Veacom. W. T. RiClIARDHON, ) Austin J. Coolidoe, Church Clerk. J. B. Dana, ) James II. Tiiateu, ? Standing Committee. Geo. II. "Whittemore, ; [In signing the above, I except the single statement that I was intimately acquainted with Dr. Pryor during his residence in Cambridge. I had no personal acquaintance with him at that timo. But his name is honored and beloved in the entire community and in all the Churches. The above Subscribers constitute the entire Board ot Officers of the Church, with the exception of one meml)er of the Standing Committee, who is a stranger to Dr. Pryor, and is now removed from Cambridge. If it were necessary to obtain further testimonials to the Christian character and high moral and ministerial standing of Dr. Pryor in this vicinity, they can, and, if thought best, will be readily furnished. COURTLAND W. AnABLE, <,*.'■" * « * » 1 * 4 • ( t « ; illx .- V" ■/ .- Jf- h ;• i.f. -fc."'-. ._"« x?v»' < •• »;» ':^- Juaui