87                         1677                           153

^{____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________}

 He y^t was much offended with y^e Church for expressing their mind what

they thought was meet to allow y^e minister because y^r was noe law for it there is

indeed none agenst it as to expressing their mind what they thought [-----] one

to another yet he can hims contrary to law joyne w^th y^e Town against y^e church in

calling a minister publickly to preach the word; y^t the act of y^e councill lay^d

him under noe obligation to voat for his preaching (hims consenting y^t

act) let y^e act be consulted with & let y^e Church judg.

^{_____________________}

 Aprill 10 1677

 The Church meet to consider of M^r Nelsons reasons (And 5 others whose hands he

had gone about to gather to his paper) against M^r Neh Jewitts Joyning with

the Church of Christ in Rowley The case is thus M^r Neh: Jewitt & Caleb

Bointon desi (both children of the Church) having desired to joyne with the ch

I being comfortably Satisfied that God had throw Grace fitted them in some mea

sure for y^t relation, I propounded them to y^e church; afterward at a church meeting

some brethren did object against thes two because though they lived close by us

yet they were in the bounds of Ipswich & therfore not being compellable to pay

here towards the meeting house & ministry the concerned [said that] it was not meet

to increase the Church by such as belonged to other Townes ffor soe in time a great [part]

of the church might consist of such as must have æquall privilidges with us & not

bear any proportionall burden in publick charges

Answer. 1: It was not desired that all who live in o^r borders Should joyne with

us though they desired it unless they ingaged to to bear such a proportion of Charges

to y^e ministry as by the church Should be thought meet

2 Those 2 were children of y^e church & we could not deny ordinances Christ has

instituted in y^e church to the members ther if they desired them & god had fitted

them for y^e same

3 These two had ingaged (though they were rated according to y^e Estate, to Ispwich)

yet seing they continually heard the word heer, they would allow a certain

sum by the year even as much as they used to be rated by the select men of

this Town for several years

 Yet the church not being fully Satisfied I told them I would propound the matter

to the Elders at y^e court of Election May 1676. The Question propounded was

whither a church could deny to admitt any of the children of the Church to

full comunion upon y^r desier & god having fitted them though they lived in

the bounds of another Town yet very near the Church they desire to joyn with

Their answer was that it need be noe Question it was frequently practised

in other churches & was a very unchristian Spirit to deny admission to such

children of the church merely because they lived in another Townes bounds &

did not pay to the ministry as others that live in y^e Town being the[y] allowed

something & payed fully Els Wher: Upon this

                     meeting

June 20 76. at a church called upon other waighty busiess as appears

page 78 ther The Elders judgm^t in y^e case was declared and the church

did then agree & vote that the Two above mentioned persons should be ad

mitted none dissenting but onely B^r Homes who say^d he had some offences

against him he was desired to attend the rule to get them removed.

According to this agreem^t of the Church one of the Two viz Caleb

                                               Bointon was admitted