View Facsimile


     87                         1677                           153


     He yt was much offended with ye Church for expressing their mind what

    they thought was meet to allow ye minister because yr 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 wth ye Town against ye church in

    calling a minister publickly to preach the word; yt the act of ye councill layd

    him under noe obligation to voat for his preaching (hims consenting yt

    act) let ye act be consulted with & let ye Church judg.


     Aprill 10 1677

     The Church meet to consider of Mr Nelsons reasons (And 5 others whose hands he

    had gone about to gather to his paper) against Mr Neh Jewitts Joyning with

    the Church of Christ in Rowley The case is thus Mr 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 yt relation, I propounded them to ye 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 or borders Should joyne with

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

    to ye ministry as by the church Should be thought meet

    2 Those 2 were children of ye church & we could not deny ordinances Christ has

    instituted in ye church to the members ther if they desired them & god had fitted

    them for ye same

    3 These two had ingaged (though they were rated according to ye 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 ye 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 yr 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 ye Town being the[y] allowed

    something & payed fully Els Wher: Upon this


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

    page 78 ther The Elders judgmt in ye case was declared and the church

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

    mitted none dissenting but onely Br Homes who sayd he had some offences

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

    According to this agreemt of the Church one of the Two viz Caleb

                                                   Bointon was admitted