Nov. 30, 1694.—­Brother Nurse and Brother Tarbell (bringing with them Joseph Putnam and Tho:  Preston) towards night came to my house, where they found the two deacons and several other brethren; viz., Tho:  Putnam, Jno.  Putnam, Jr., Benj.  Wilkins, and Ezek:  Cheever, besides Lieutenant Jno.  Walcot.  And Brother Tarbell said they came to answer my paper, which they had now considered of, and their answer was this; viz., that they remained dissatisfied, and desired that the church would call a council, according to the advice we had lately from ministers.

[An account has been given, p. 493, of the attempts of the “dissatisfied brethren” to procure a mutual council to decide the controversy between them and Mr. Parris.  On the 14th of June, 1694, a letter was addressed to him, advising him to agree to the call of such a council, signed by John Higginson, of the First Church in Salem; James Allen, of the First Church in Boston; John Hale, of the church in Beverly; Samuel Willard, of the Old South Church in Boston; Samuel Cheever, of the church in Marblehead; and Joseph Gerrish, of the church in Wenham.  Nicholas Noyes joined in the advice, “with this proviso, that he be not chosen one of the council.”  Mr. Parris contrived to avoid following the advice.  On the 10th of September, Messrs. Higginson, Allen, Willard, Cheever, and Gerrish again, in earnest and quite peremptory terms, renewed their advice in another letter to Mr. Parris.  No longer venturing to resist their authority, he yielded, and consented to a mutual council, upon certain terms, one of which was, that neither of the churches whose ministers had thus forced him to the measure should be of the council.  The following passages give the conclusion of the matter, as related by Mr. Parris in his record-book:—­]

Feb. 12 [1695].—­The church met again, as last agreed upon; and, after a while, our dissenting brethren, Tho:  Wilkins, Sam:  Nurse, and Jno.  Tarbell, came also.  After our constant way of begging the presence of God with us, we desired our dissenting brethren to acquaint us whether they would accept of our last proposals, which they desired to this day to consider of.  They answered, that they were willing to drop the six churches from whose elders we had had the advice abovesaid, dated 14 June last; but they were not free to exclude Ipswich.  This they stuck unto long, and then desired that they might withdraw a little to confer among themselves about it, which was granted.  But they quickly returned, as resolved for Ipswich as before.  We desired them to nominate the three churches they would have sent to:  and, after much debate, they did; viz., Rowley, Salisbury, and Ipswich.  Whereupon we voted, by a full consent, Rowley and Salisbury churches for a part of the council, and desired them to nominate a third church.  But still they insisted on Ipswich, which we told them they were openly informed, the last meeting, that we had excepted against.  Then