a soothing word, but actually reiterating his belief of the guilt of their mother; telling them, as he says, “that he had not seen sufficient grounds to vary his opinion.”  Cloyse came soon after to the village, and had an interview with him for the same purpose.  Parris saw them one only at a time, in order to preclude their taking the second step required by the gospel rule; that is, to have a brother of the church with them as a witness.  He also took the ground that they could not be witnesses for each other, but that he should treat them all as only one person in the transaction.  A sense of the injustice of his conduct, or some other consideration, led William Way, another of the brethren, to go with them as a witness.  Nurse, Tarbell, Wilkins, Cloyse, and Way went to his house together.  He said that the four first were but one person in the case; but admitted that Way was a distinct person, a brother of accredited standing, and a witness.  He escaped, however, under the subterfuge that the gospel rule required “two or three witnesses.”  In this way, the matter stood for some time; Parris saying that they had not complied with the conditions in Matt. xviii., and they maintaining that they had.

The course of Parris was fast diminishing his hold upon the public confidence.  It was plain that the disaffected brethren had done what they could, in an orderly way, to procure a council.  At length, the leading clergymen here and in Boston, whose minds were open to reason, thought it their duty to interpose their advice.  They wrote to Parris, that he and his church ought to consent to a council.  They wrote a second time in stronger terms.  Not daring to quarrel with so large a portion of the clergy, Parris pretended to comply with their advice, but demanded a majority of the council to be chosen by him and his church.  The disaffected brethren insisted upon a fair, mutual council; each party to have three ministers, with their delegates, in it.  To this, Parris had finally to agree.  The dissatisfied brethren named, as one of their three, a church at Ipswich.  Parris objected to the Ipswich church.  The dissenting brethren insisted that each side should be free to select its respective three churches.  Parris was not willing to have Ipswich in the council.  The other party insisted, and here the matter hung suspended.  The truth is, that the disaffected brethren were resolved to have the Rev. John Wise in the council.  They knew Cotton Mather would be there, on the side of Parris; and they knew that John Wise was the man to meet him.  The public opinion settled down in favor of the dissatisfied brethren, on the ground that each party to a mutual council ought to—­and, to make it really mutual, must—­have free and full power to nominate the churches to be called by it.  Parris, being afraid to have a mutual council, and particularly if Mr. Wise was in it, suddenly took a new position.  He and his church called an ex parte council,