And more; a right to do it unmolested. And besides, in doing this, he did no more than sign his name what the really was; what he had honestly told us he was; and what we actually received him for. And this, if he signed his name at all, his covenant engagements required him, as they require every man, to be honest. And honest he was. He would suffer no misunderstanding; but told us plainly his profession of faith. Instead, therefore, of breaking his covenant engagements, by signing his name a Restorationer, I think he rather fulfilled them. He acted the honest part.

Much the same may be observed, in regard to the second article of charge,-He has manifested great coldness towards the recent reformation in this place, by absenting himself from our religious meetings. As to this charge, allowing that the sickness of his family required his attendance at home; then this attendance was so far from breaking his covenant engagements, that it was actually fulfilling them. He was in the way of his duty, not guilty, but innocent. In this concise, this summary view of the whole case, we see the nature of the charges, now brought against brother Boynton. In the next place, let us set forth the nature of the satisfaction we require. The satisfaction which we require, my brethren, if we require any, is repentance. This is always required. For example, if a member has been guilty of lying, he must be sorry for his lying, leave it off, and speak the truth. This is repentance. So in case of Sabbath-breaking; or any wrong whatever. He must be sorry for the wrong, leave it off, and do right. This is repentance. And this is what we require in the case before us. It is leaving off the wrong, and doing right. The wrong then, in the case before us, is signing his name a Restorationer; just what he really is. This is the wrong; of this, then, he must now repent. This he must now leave off, and in time to come, if he sign his name at all, must sign it what it is not; not what it is. This is the offence; but what it is not! This is -repentance, and the only repentance, my brethren,

which the case can admit. This then is the repentance, the satisfaction we require. And this the satisfaction in case of his absence from meeting. Admitting the sickness of his family required his absence from meeting, and his attendance at home, then, he must be sorry he has done as the sickness of his family required him to do; he must leave it off, and do so no more! Now, then, in case our offending brother could come forward, and say with tears in his eyes, I repent, I am sorry I have signed my name what it really is; I will do so no more; but in time to come, sign it what it is not:-In case he could come forward and say, I thus repent, we are bound to forgive himbound, glaring as the deception is, to acknowledge it satisfactory, and receive him to our fellowship. So could he come forward, and say I am sorry I have attended upon my family, when sickness required, rather than upon our religious meetings; and will do so no more; we are bound to acknowledge it satisfactory. In this, therefore, we see the nature of the repentance, the satisfaction we require. In the first instance it amounts, must I say, to deception;-a resolution to leave off signing his name what it is; and to sign it what it is not! And, in the second instance to an omission of his duty to his family in distress ;—a resolution to leave, even his mother in distress, and attend upon our religious meetings! I declare, my brethren, the thought excites my tears and my astonishment! I can hardly believe the facts before my eyes. I hesitate,-I query,-is it possible for a church of Christ bring such charges, and require such a satisfaction? Perhaps, I myself mistake. But wherein? Do I mistake, when I say the church has brought such charges? No. They say it themselves,-and here the charges are. Do I then mistake when I say they require repentance, as a necessary satisfaction? By no means:This is always required. And what is this repentance, but a sorrow for the offence, and a resolution to offend no more?-a sorrow that he has signed his name what it really is, and a resolution to

do it no more?-a sorrow that he has absented him-self from our meetings, when sickness required it, and a resolution to do it no more? This I may venture to say, is the repentance, the satisfaction we actually require. It cannot be a sorrow for the offence, and commit it again ;-It must be a sorrow for the offence, and commit it no more. Where then can I mistake ? No mistake can I see. And if there is no mistake, if the honest truth has been brought into view, it may well excite my tears and my astonishment! I do not wonder so much at the children in the church. No; children naturally inquire of their fathers what is right; what their fathers inform them, they readily believe. But I wonder at the fathers-men of years→→→ men of experience; and with the Bible open before them! I wonder that they should bring such charges, and require such a satisfaction!

To conclude; as we have attended to each particular charge, and endeavored clearly to set forth the truth, it appears that brother Boynton has, in neither of the charges brought against him, broken any covenant engagement whatever. And if not, then should we proceed to excommunicate him as a covenant breaker, when he is not a covenant breaker, we shall of course become covenant breakers ourselves; just as in the case of the marriage covenant, stated at the beginning of our inquiry. This is a plain case, and the very point to which we are now reduced. We have then, only to ask, Shall we proceed? or shall we forbear? Shall we become covenant breakers? or shall we withdraw our complaints, and make satisfaction for the trouble we have occasioned? But, to dissuade my brethren from proceeding, I wish to observe: Should we proceed, and become ourselves the guilty party, we shall, in my opinion, forfeit our claim to the confidence of mankind, and to the confidence of our own members. I say for one, I can no longer feel myself safe in the church.

This was our defence before the church. The church, then, as we supposed, granted the ground of his conduct which they had made the subject of complaint, and, in effect, made his sentiments the ground, the subject of complaint. For, instead of attempting to point out any error in the defence, they replied; "We did not receive Esq. B. back, to harbor such senti ments in the church; but to correct the error of our former proceedings." That was, to take the first and second step, which they did not then take: and excommunicate him again. Upon this, the moderator, Rev. Walter Chapin, thought our defence had missed its object; and that as the church received him back for that purpose, they might proceed upon that princi ple. Then, altho he thought improper before, he undertook to set forth, at considerable length, the dangerous tendency of the Restoration sentiment. I conceded to the justness of his observations ;* but wished to understand, whether he were proceeding upon the charges, or upon his sentiments. He then put his hand upon the paper, as if to say, upon the charges. But, said I, by your present observations, it seems as the you were proceeding upon his sentiments. We wish to understand. But he gave us no answer. As therefore, we could not be informed; and as we were not prepared to meet them upon this new ground they had taken, we remained silent, and the business proceeded. The church voted to withdraw their fellowship from Esq. Boynton. This, altho other things were said, was the current of business after our defence. This therefore, taken in connexion with other things, we wish to bring forward, is what we thought extraordinary in a church of Christ, is the reason why myself and others withdrew, at the time, and in the manner, we did;-is what I thought was actually wrong; and what I could not acknowledge to be right, altho the church required it. For in my opinion it carries the appearance of inconsistency, of unfairness,

*Mr. Brown is not a Universalist.

of deception, and of covenant-breaking. I say the appearance, and shall leave it with this council to judge as to the reality.

First. It has the appearance of inconsistency. For after the two charges were brought forward, Dea. Clarke, in order to give us a distinct understanding of the case, observed, that brother Boynton's Restoration sentiments were not brought as a complaint against him, but his immoral conduct, growing, as he termed it, out of those sentiments. Now, upon supposition, his Restoration sentiments were the real complaint in the mind of the church, as appears by their after proceedings they were, how then, could they declare, they were not?

And if they were not their complaint, then, how could they make them so? How could they make them their complaint, when, at the very time, they declared they were not their complaint? This, to say the least, has, I think, the appearance of inconsistency. Another thing which has the appearance is this-After our defence, Dea. Clarke replied, We did not receive brother Boynton back to harbor Restoration sentiments in the church; but to correct the error of our former proceedings. This was their statement, and according to this, the church in the first instance of excommunication, proceeded without taking the previous steps; and perceiving their error, they received him back in order to take them,-to go brother by brother, as directed by our Savior, to reclaim him from his erroneous sentiments. To do this, was, it seems, their honest intention. For this very purpose, according to the statement, they received him back. It was also not only their intention; butit continued to be their intention for five full years. But yet, after all, instead of doing what they honestly intended, instead of going as directed by our Savior to reclaim him from his erroneous sentiments, they told him repeatedly, and told us all in open meeting, that his erroneous sentiments were not their complaint against him; but his immoral conduct. They then