proceeded to a second excommunication, leaving their error as it was-uncorrected. Now, if the church honestly intended to correct their error,-to go and labor to reclaim him from his erroneous sentiments; how could they declare that those sentiments were not their complaint against him? And if they were not their complaint, as they actually declared; then, how could they honestly intend to go and reclaim him? To go and reclaim him from those sentiments, which were not their complaint against him? And besides, it seems, according to the statement, that the church thought they could not correct their error without receiving him back to their communion. Therefore, they received him.

There is one thing more, and the only one under this head, which I shall now mention. According to the aforesaid statement, by withdrawing their fellowship once, and intending after correcting their error, to withdraw it again, it appears that the church looked upon brother Boynton at the time, as unworthy of their communion. And yet, even while they looked upon him as unworthy, they actually received him ast if he were worthy. And why? truly, according to their own statement, because they had done unworthily themselves; intending, after his reception, to do more worthily,-to correct their error! This, also, has I think, the appearance of inconsistency.

We come, secondly, to their unfairness from the aforesaid statement. It appears that the church proceeded at last, upon the ground of his religious sentiments; and justified themselves upon the principle of receiving him back, in order to correct their former error, and now to deal with him as our Savior has directed. Whereas, in the first instance, they rather failed. Now upon supposition they actually did proceed upon his religious sentiments; their proceedings must appear, I think, extremely unfair. For, if his religious sentiments were, in reality, the grounds of their complaint, as appears they were, why could they not bring them as the ground of their complaint? And

instead of telling him they were not, why could they not inform him that they were? Especially, when information was requested? Must a brother in the church be brought upon trial, as it were for his life, and he not be informed for what? And must he, in this way, be shut out from every chance to make either satisfaction or defence, till the sentence of his death is actually passed? Is this fair? I was going to say, were he brought upon trial by the court of Inquisition, &c. But I forbear-I only add; it seems, christianity must bleed at the thought, the appearance is so unfair!

Thirdly. We are to consider the appearance of deception. This may be seen in the result of two statements.

First. After brother Boynton's former excommunication, the church was in a broken state, for about four years. Then Rev. Justin Parsons came as a Missionary. In the time of his ministry, the church were led by some means or other, to think they had done wrong in dealing with brother Boynton for his religious sentiments, as they did; and wished to understand, if he would return. He informed that he would; on condition he might no more suffer for his sentiments, which were still the same. But if his conduct should be inconsistent with his christian profession, he was willing to suffer; but was not willing to suffer for his sentiments. Upon this a meeting was called. The church then, one by one, acknowledged to brother Boynton, they had done wrong in dealing with him for his sentiments as they did. After this, at another meeting they rescinded their vote of excommunication; and with open arms received him again to their communion. This statement of brother Boynton's readmission, we think is correct. And for its correctness we can appeal to competent witnesses, the concession, made by Dea. Clarke in open meeting, and to the records of the church. The other statement is the one we have repeatedly mentioned before, viz. the statement of the church. We did not

receive brother Boynton back in order to harbor Restoration sentiments; but to correct the error of our former proceedings.'

In the result of these two statements may be seen, I think, the appearance of deception. According to the first, the church acknowledge to brother Boynton, they had done wrong in turning him away for his sentiments as they did. And what was this acknowledgement of wrong, but a declaration that they were sorry, and would do the wrong no more?

After this, they rescinded their vote which turned him away for his sentiments. And what was this, but acknowledging again they had done wrong in voting him away for his sentiments, and declaring that they would do it no more? Yet, notwithstanding all thisthis practical, this repeated declaration, that they would not; that such a thing was not in their heart; yet, I say, if we are to believe their own statement, it actually was their intention, to turn him away for his sentiments again; for they could not harbor them in the church. Now, for a church of Christ thus practically to, declare, thus repeatedly, that they were wrong in turning him away for his religion, as they did, and would do it no more, when, at the very time, it was in their heart, their real intention to do it, carries, It think, the appearance of deception.

Fourthly and lastly. We come to the part of their proceedings, which carries the appearance of covenant breaking; in regard to this, if our aforesaid statement is correct, brother Boynton informed the church, that he could not return to suffer for confession of faith as he had suffered. And, understanding this condition, it appears, that the church assured, at least, strongly encouraged him to expect he should not. They acknowledged to brother Boynton, they had done wrong in dealing with him for his sentiments as they did. And what was this, but saying they were sorry, and would do so no more? After this, as if to remove every ground of jealousy, and confirm his expectation, they repeated their acknowledgement of

wrong, in reconsidering their vote. Their vote of excommunication, they actually reconsidered. And what was this, but declaring again they had done wrong in voting him away for his sentiments, as they did, and would do it no more? This, I think, was actually agreeing to the condition he proposed. The condition was this, "I cannot return to suffer as I have for my confession of faith." And their acknowledgement said repeatedly, "You shall not. We have done wrong in making you suffer as we did, and will do it no more." Does not this look like entering into covenant,-like agreeing to the condition he proposed ?

But here is one thing more. After this was all done, they actually received him to their communion. And what was this but opening their arms and telling him to come?

How these things appear to this venerable Council, I cannot say. But to me they appear like entering into covenant, and giving him as strong an assurance as human frailty could give, that he should no more be turned away for his sentiments as he had been. And yet, notwithstanding this assurance, this practical, this repeated declaration that they would not do the wrong they had done;-would not turn him away for his sentiments again; yet, I may venture to say, they have actually done it. But according to their statement, they received him back for this very purpose; to correct their error, and turn him away again-his sentiments were so corrupt.

For this church, therefore, to proceed and excommunicate brother Boynton, because of his religion, as they did before, when they gave him such a practical and repeated assurance that they would not, carries, at least, the appearance of covenant breaking. This appearance, therefore, of covenant breaking, of deception, of unfairness and inconsistency, in the proceedings of this church, is what we thought extraordinary, is the reason why myself and others withdrew at the time and in the manner we did,—is what I thought was wrong, and could not acknowledge to be

right. If I could have acknowledged it to be right, it seems the church would have been satisfied, and received me again to the Lord's table-a worthy communicant. But as I could not, I must be cast off as I now am-unworthy.

Before we submit to the Council what is here offered, I cannot but express my surprise that the three enlightened ministers, then present, should encourage and lead on a professed church of Christ to excommunicate a brother, when they could not inform him for what, even when information was requested! And cannot to this day!

I say, I cannot but express my surprise!

JOSEPH BRown.

RECORDS OF THE CHURCH.

At a church meeting holdeu at Plymouth on the 15th of August, 1810-opened by prayer-and after hearing Isaiah Boynton reject all admonition, and persist in his sentiments of universal salvation, and urging a decisive vote to be taken at that time, the church voted to withdraw their watch-care over him.

December 8, 1814.

Whereas the church have had a number of meetings and conferences within six months past, and have this day a meeting when Mr. Parsons preached at the school-house, and then met at Daniel Clarke's, for the purpose of removing difficulties out of the way, if any should appear, and of having a communion; the following vote was taken, viz.

At a church meeting in Plymouth, Rev. Justin Parsons, Moderator

Voted, unanimously, to reconsider the vote passed by the church in Aug. the 15th, 1810, as premature; and to place ourselves and our brother Boynton in the same relation to each other, as we were before said vote.

Attest,

JUSTIN PARSONS, Moderator.

ABEL MANNING.