When Mr. Gookin, with the Apostle Elliot, visited the towns of the Massachusetts Praying Indians, in 1674, he says, that on one occasion, a large part of the night was spent at Sagamore's wigwam, in company with the principal Indians then at the settlement, in prayer, singing psalms and exhortation. There was one person present, who sat mute during all these exercises. At length he arose and said, that he was an agent for Uncas, the Mohegan sachem, and that in his name he challenged a right to, and dominion over this people of Wabquissit. [FN] "Uncas is not well pleased," added he, "that the English should pass over Mohegan river, to call _his_ Indians to pray to God." Mr. Gookin replied, that Wabquissit was within the Massachusetts jurisdiction, and that no harm need be feared at all events; the English only wished to bring the Indians to the knowledge of Christ, and to suppress among them the sins of drunkenness, idolatry, powowing, witchcraft, murder, and the like. * * * * * [FN] The South-East corner of Woodstock, and still called Wabequasset. It was in truth, as it still is, part of Connecticut, though claimed by Massachusetts, as well as by Uncas. This was plainly a lecture meant for the benefit of Uncas himself, and his agent was specially requested to inform him of the answer made to his protest. In another connexion, we find Mr. Gookin's opinion expressed to the same effect, without the same circumlocution. "I am apt to fear," is his language, [FN] "that a great obstruction unto his [Mr. Fitch's] labors, is in the sachem of those Indians, whose name is Unkas; an old wicked and wilful man; a drunkard, and otherwise very vicious; who hath always been an opposer and underminer of praying to God--some hints whereof I have given in the narrative of my journey to Wabquissit, before mentioned." The Sachem once took the trouble to visit Hartford for the express purpose of complaining to the Colonial authorities of the attempts made to convert his subjects to Christianity. * * * * * [FN] _His. Coll. Chapter X._ His piety, then, will hardly bear rigid examination. Whether his morality was quite so objectionable as Mr. Gookin supposed, or whether that good man was unduly prejudiced against him for his opposition to the ministry, may not be easily decided. There is but too much reason for believing, however, that there was great truth in most of the charges, and a most pertinent application for the lecture referred to above. The United Commissioners themselves seem to pay but a sorry compliment to his previous habits when, so late as 1672, they directed a letter to be written to him, "to incurrage him to attende on the Minnestrey."