MR. BROWN'S DEFENCE IN FAVOR OF MR. BOYNTON, BE

FORE THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN PLYMOUTH,

1

TO WHICH, AT THAT TIME, THEY BOTH BELONGED.

Mr. Moderator,-The case before us is one of the most extraordinary I have ever known in the churches. I have therefore made it a subject of careful inquiry; and would now open it to my brethren of this church, in its true light. In my leisure I have thought proper to write, and one principal reason why I have written, is, that the inquiry may be open to a review. If the inquiry be consistent with truth, a review may be profitable. If it be inconsistent, its error may be detected. As to this, after a patient and careful hearing, the church will be able to judge. But whether consistent or inconsistent, believe me, my brethren, its design is to set forth, in a clear light, the nature of the charges, brought against our offending brother, the nature of the satisfaction we require, and the result of an excommunication. To the whole I wish for a patient and careful attention. And may the Lord assist us ;-may he open our hearts to a proper conviction, and enable us to manage the cause in his fear and to his glory.

Such in my view is the nature of the charges, and the nature of the satisfaction required, that no satisfaction can be made. Of course, the charges must be withdrawn, or an excommunication take place. Upon this expectation, you will perceive, the whole inquiry is founded. Therefore, we observe, that, in order to the excommunication of a member, we ought, my brethren, to have the most convincing evidence, that that member has broken his covenant engagements. Then we may proceed with safety. But to proceed without this evidence, more especially, to proceed with evidence of the contrary before us; evidence that he has not broken his covenant engagements; we shall break the covenant, and become ourselves the guilty party. Just as in the case of the marriage covenant. If the male party wrongfully accuse the other,

and unjustly put her away, as guilty, when she is not guilty, he breaks the covenant, and becomes himself the guilty party. So in the case before us. Should we deal with our offending brother, as a covenantBreaker, when he is not, we break the covenant, and become ourselves the guilty party.

Let us then very seriously inquire, whether brother Boynton has broken his covenant. And, in order to be satisfied, let us now attend to the allegations brought against him.

First. He has signed under the Restoration head, for improving the Meeting-house. That is, in signing under this head, he has declared to us, and to the world, that he is a Restorationer.

This declaration is that open profession of his religious sentiments, which, according to Dea. Clarke, has now become immoral conduct,-an offence of a very serious nature. But with regard to this, let me ask, Did he not declare to us, at the time we received him back to our communion, and did he not declare to the world, that he was a Restorationer? To be sure. This no one in the church presumes to deny. And was this declaration, this open-heartedness, in telling us honestly what he was, then considered an offence, as it is now? An offence which rendered him unworthy of our communion? How then could he be admitted to our communion? And especially, how could he be admitted, time after time, for five years? But if it were not considered an offence-If at the time, it was considered right in brother Boynton, to declare openly his faith, to tell us honestly what he was, how can it be considered wrong now? How can it be made an offence, equal to covenant-breaking? For my own part I confess it is difficult to understand.

And besides, here is another circumstance. Instead of breaking his covenant, by signing his name a Restorationer, brother Boynton had a covenant right to do so a right by a covenant made in open daylight, by him and the church; at least by her leading

members, and assented unto by the rest. The covenant is the following:

"Plymouth, South East District School house. "An agreement entered into by the Meeting-house Society, so called. That whereas the Society is formed of men of different religious tenets, it is unani. mously agreed, that each denomination shall be entitled (upon requesting the same) to the Meetinghouse, such a part of the time as shall make them equal to the other denominations, according to what money they have paid in building said Meeting-house: Which privilege shall be given to each denomination without molestation or hindrance whatever. In witness of this agreement, we hereunto set our hands this nineteenth day of April, 1815. Signed by

Isaiah Boynton, Robert Dunlap, Benjamin Page, Timothy Ellis, Jun. Daniel Bassett, James Pollard, Andrew Dunlap, Caleb Weaver, Daniel Clarke, Joseph Howe, Elisha Bigelow, Asahel Godard, John French, Jacob Marsh, John Ayer, Eliakim Davis, Joseph Brown, James French.

A true copy of the record,

ISAIAH BOYNTON, Clerk for the Society." This, brethren, is the covenant. And now because he has exercised the right of this covenant-must I say those very persons who entered into the covenant, and gave him the right-they have come forward with a complaint against him for exercising the right which they themselves gave him. Is not this extraordinary? How could a church of Christ,-how could fathers in Israel, do such a thing as this? By this covenant our offending brother had a right not only to sign under the Restoration head; but also to hire Restoration preaching; and in this way to enjoy his religious sentiments unmolested. For this appears to be the very sense of the agreement. Yet notwithstanding, lest he should give uneasiness to his brethren, he gave up this right, and with them hired congregational preaching.

What an instance is this of an accommodating spirit! a desire to live in peace, that the God of peace might be with him!

The substance of the foregoing is this. As brother Boynton was cautious in his return to the church, and in order to prevent any after difficulty, told us honestly his profession of faith; that it was the same as it had been; and as we received him with this same profession; and especially, as we afterwards gave him a covenant right to this same profession; and a right to maintain it unmolested; how can his maintaining it be a breach of his covenant? A breach of his covenant to us, who gave him this right? It cannot, in my opinion.-It cannot be. He is innocent. The evidence before us is strong in his favor.

We come now to the second article of charge; viz. He has manifested great coldness towards the recent reformation in this place, by absenting himself from our religious meetings. In regard to this charge, my brethren, our offending brother, altho he has attended once in a while, acknowledges, that, generally, he has been absent from public worship; but says, the sickness of his family required his attendance at home. He states, that during the recent reformation, he was "by turns unwell himself; his father also. His mother, nearly at the beginning of the reformation, was taken sick and continued sick till nearly the close. And her sickness being somewhat like that of a palsy, rendered her so helpless, as to make his attendance upon public worship, generally, inconvenient, and often impracticable. Now, allowing this statement correct and that it is correct, he is willing to have all his neighbors testify, how ean his attendance at home be a proof of coldness towards the reformation ? Might he not, while weeping for his mother upon her dying bed, rejoice at the return of sinners to the way of life? I think he might. And who can say but he did? Would not charity, which hopes all things, hope that he did; and consider his attendance at home a proof of dutifulness to his aged mother,

then upon her dying bed, rather than a proof of coldness towards the reformation? I think it would. But to come more directly to the point. Allowing the sickness of his family to require his attendance at home; then, this attendance, instead of breaking, was actually fulfilling his covenant engagements. He was in the way of his duty, not guilty, but innocent.

But after all, it seems, the church are jealous he might have attended more than he has, notwithstanding the sickness of his family. Well supposing he might. Then, you ask, why did he not? We answer, possibly for some reason or other he might be dissatisfied with the minister; and on this account absent himself from meeting. And if on this account he absented himself from meeting; his absence, if it prove any thing, must prove him dissatisfied with the minister; and not with the reformation. With regard to the reformation, his absence in this case, proves nothing. Or being dissatisfied with the minister, he might, possibly, be afraid he should say something against him, or against his preaching; and so hinder the reformation. If this were the reason of his absence, it proves him, I think, rather friendly to the reformation than otherwise.

Thus, my brethren, if we can only hear the voice of reason, and especially the voice of charity, that charity which bears all things, and hopes all is well; it will do away this charge against our offending brother entirely. It will do away our disagreeable feelings; and dispose us to conclude that his absence, considering its circumstances, is no proof,-no manifestation at all of coldness towards the recent reformation. It will dispose us to conclude that he is innocent. The evidence before us is thus strong in his favor. To sum up and bring the whole into one point of view, It is this,

First. He signed under the Restoration head for improving the Meeting-house. This, it is acknowledged, he actually did. And this he had a right to de-a covenant right, which we ourselves gave him.