PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 E 186 .P85 v. 9 
 Wheelwright, John 
 
 1679. 
 
 John Wheelwright 
 
 mmmm 
 
 A /s' a' A > . A ' • ! 
 
 f M ip xw 
 
 • f kw > ¥ If f 
 
 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 
 mmjM 
 
 MBDHEB 
 
 gHB 
 
 fflfll 
 
 
 
 
 «| 
 
 H 
 
 MHB 
 
 
 
 III 
 
 §8 
 
 ■H| 
 
 
 Iplpa 
 
 lllj 
 
 B 
 
 ■HB 
 
 BHBpiM 
 

 
 
 
 ff ▼ 1^1/ 
 
 
 ! iy\fAf^/Af« r^'A'iA!Ai F !aI t v in 
 
 
 
 < r rw% 
 
 
 
 
 T ia f [A 
 
 
 
 
 
 onj 
 
 
 r W ( 
 
 P2ra 
 
 »■ jfj^ c ^W,” 1 >¥ VvT yf^s2,^2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WW 
 
 
 iwwy 
 
 

 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 
 ^ubltcattons of tf)e prince 
 
 Eftablifhed May 25th, 1858. 
 
 John Wheelwright. 
 
 Boston: 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY, 
 By John Wilson and Son. 
 
 1876. 
 
TEN COPIES, LARGE 
 
 PAPER. 
 
 TWO HUNDRED COPIES, SMALL PAPER. 
 
PLATE I. 
 
 a 
 
 OYm-tf 
 
 aJd Cy pfayf* ihxA Q 'C*.Ca. nt . t »n»fyl£- J^enn»x4. 0 $ J,,?£^^_ 
 
 u kcKg- kc***& h<*4+& ^Je^Ldi C \,j % -£ c > il&Ttn UntlPc 
 
 6p~ JjiCcxJjrx>^ H^A.£tL ^c^rri Uj^L 4~P{^'t'h^jcri <3- j4&jt u&£~r*~C s£*X~ of 'ZP<*fb>n~ ' 
 
 . fjtj^Cfrba (ju-n & Co*p>f*>Ti *j &>x/I*w 
 
 ivi$4jh?i f ***• £** #ffi 4 / m 
 
 4 str XL —. fl ja*. a/ /si jfifMtr M i 1 - a ( ^ ^ 
 
 Cccltl*-J £ -JXen .I 
 
 Js(ic ^Ps/i iw;.„ „ ^ 
 
 ri <t~£C r/j e 
 
 <* /(- 
 
 r$~V*,€. £j 
 
 —<*s 
 
 m <*-«- jU'&fi-' lamdLf n > 0 *§ O V -pY -~T 
 
 frr)%$ v»erp r»e~ £*u*-&^ th, ®r&L~ ***t*—-£* ** rf* j j*^J c '* L '?**■<**£- 
 
 I - ! ‘S. i .. ^ fir f^.. fJ? /7-A* -stf i- , t! .C/JU h *Jr€7rf& &-A, ii4 
 
 f/ si iv* <H*4 ^ It f"fv * r 3PcL$£ Ct <± £ 
 
 vx to -(-fZ*. C? > c<-yy&*nj 
 
 iriL y*h*t*.. 4& -/'/t M <£. £i**i JClTM/ ' 
 
 u-^Ln. ** ivetpbd’.-^i, 4 -g<a-_ a- cf**-p *y?« 
 
 S fi „ ** 4 '*£~~ S rT^y J a , 
 
 Q oc. 
 
 iccntTi. JL £0 
 
 
 
 IAK 4 L- 
 
 flitJ^l'K-k) fit /r*y '(>‘*y £ pf^u£- 
 
 Jt*»J Sjofafa^ J- 
 
 W'4^' }•*%£*» *"' 
 
 a***« 
 
 t 
 
 Q -*'>' 11 'O' Cl. 
 
 fvtf* 
 
 OLTltf idntutll- 
 
 fa ^ C ^rU 
 Hrn<> tAw 
 
i ;* . . v\ • . 
 
 John Wheelwright. 
 
 HIS WRITINGS, INCLUDING HIS FAST-DAY SERMON, 1637, 
 AND HIS MERCURIUS AMERICANUS, 1645; WITH 
 A PAPER UPON THE GENUINENESS OF 
 THE INDIAN DEED OF 1629, 
 
 AND A 
 
 MEMOIR 
 
 By CHARLES H. BELL, A.M. 
 
 / 
 
 33 0 si 1 0 n: 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE PRINCE SOCIETY. 
 
 1876. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, by 
 CHARLES H. BELL, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 3EtJitor: 
 
 CHARLES H. BELL, A.M. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Fac Similes of the Indian Deeds of 1638 to Wheel¬ 
 
 wright and others. Frontispiece. 
 
 Preface . v 
 
 Memoir of the Rev. John Wheelwright. 1 
 
 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; was it spurious? ... 79 
 
 Copy of the Wheelwright Deed of 1629.143 
 
 Bibliography.149 
 
 Fast-day Sermon, 1637.153 
 
 Mercurius Americanus.181 
 
 The Will of John Wheelwright.229 
 
 The Prince Society.237 
 
 Index .247 
 
P T E. n. 
 
 
 r ' ,zW /^ ?°) 
 
 7 K 
 
 *'&+<//*> 'U ^t)\? & /fc+rtsO'XA? n &M V ^ y? 
 
 Ujcx ZyxJkA^r <* 
 
 'HtOoUHS </t> 'Tt tfrfh^m '?°J °T, 
 
 ^ **Cot*J ■■***#* ^/P«4p yyj& fcxflh M&brxft /?<&*% tricaMM&.l 
 
 <&(TKf^y yT&fcfttA nAAy ylr&A-c 
 
 ^ Zctofof W7iAfrwct$i 
 
 f^AyA&9: 
 
 ^^ZZZ^'i-irpy>A~^ ^ Z Z 
 
 / ■ yy Q^%y&ic'-*Aj*A--&h Z Q7hC^j/y^arifr' 
 
 im^J <vaeg£y 9 Jt> /ut4x& ^Zy*^!ZhAd 
 
 -di^6irri^Ac( £? y*znA : 
 
 I (^7 <XjCI CXTlXOfifr ~7& J^L'fst'Vy 
 
 yovUfff / Am. UJ-ishjlA& ^ 
 
 , „ z 
 
 w-Cp 77^\ 
 
 ’ ^vJ&6 
 
 SiAfoW- 
 
 ^ Z-~$Z<x&. 
 
 W7'-§d-&*\/s-$ TjTfty 
 
 CZ-^^' 
 
 Af(*.**-<*-[?<>Z7& J.£u?. 
 wW^*- 
 
 ^ $s* C&rn^ ^J^I'<'*i-^Arlt- 
 
 J ummixo 0 <Jlti~ijn 
 injan** -rrtox-ef^jfn 
 
"P LATE nr. 
 
 ^J'fn’Jh £~^CKl^p uy*k~ ^b f *± p*>*JUi 
 
 Cmyyphrp&' £ro •* <vm f- Ot ^v u \4 ||^v ^ ^ ^ t^> «*-0- 
 
 *« i+cid* ^L tt'P'rv. 
 
 „ .l^n«pTV U^U**a-<3p£***&- fb*+S*4i>^£^''**^ <£ C*r^eL -£r^.£L. 
 
 £ty>l4? %<Xj jp jkjrjH- /(>3J * 
 
 ^ tt»l QC%i* l fe, ^«-Ov*£- y*»k> -f:Ck" 4 t>*u- C 4 +V^& Co t*-*i* 0 1 - — _ _ . -- 
 
 f°-* t£*fr*-e+<£ pn * ***& ^ 
 
 m * xpv6. io~ * 
 
 *crr'jf« U ~J fl 9 " u J& 
 
 '» ott 
 
 *-£ ^ 
 
 
 
 ** 
 
 t£ 
 
 
 &«~&£ %*&££ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 HE editor ventures to hope that the members 
 of the Prince Society will find this volume, 
 which contains documents not generally accef- 
 fible even to fcholars, a ufeful contribution to 
 an important and interefting chapter of our 
 early hiftory. The Memoir has been prepared from mate¬ 
 rials, many of them exifting only in manufcript, collected 
 from all known fources of information on the fubjedl in 
 this country; fupplemented by the fruits of fuch inquiry in 
 England as time and opportunity allowed. Though necef- 
 farily meagre, it is the only approach to a complete 
 biography of Wheelwright yet written; and will enable 
 the hifiorical ftudent, it is confidently hoped, to form a 
 jufter eftimate of the man and the influences by which he 
 was furrounded here, than any other publifhed account. 
 The author of the Memoir has not withheld his opinions, 
 where the expreffion of them feemed proper. Though they 
 do not in all refpedts agree with thofe of fome writers 
 who have treated of the fame fubjedls, yet they have been 
 
 formed 
 
VI 
 
 formed from undifputed fadts, upon full confideration, and 
 without known prejudice; and they are fubmitted as fully 
 fuftained by the hiftorical evidence. 
 
 A half-century has paffed fince the Hon. James Savage 
 firft queftioned the genuinenefs of the Wheelwright deed of 
 1629. In each edition of Winthrop’s Hiftory of New Eng¬ 
 land iffued under his fupervifion, he introduced an elaborate 
 argument to prove the deed fpurious; and in his Genea¬ 
 logical Dictionary he declared his convidtion to the fame 
 effedt. Some other hiftorical writers expreffed the fame 
 views; notably John Farmer, Efq., in his edition of Bel¬ 
 knap’s New Hampfhire, in 1831, and the Rev. Dr. J. M. 
 Whiton, in his Sketches of the Hiftory of the State, in 
 1834. 
 
 Other gentlemen, converfant with the early affairs of this 
 region, have entertained a different opinion. To fay nothing 
 of Governor William Plumer and Nathaniel Adams, Efq., 
 both of whom controverted the pofitions of Mr. Savage, 
 Samuel G. Drake, Efq., always retained full faith in the 
 Wheelwright purchafe, and afferted it repeatedly in his 
 publifhed writings; and the Hon. Chandler E. Potter not 
 only declared, in his Hiftory of Manchefter, N.H., his un- 
 hefitating belief that the deed was genuine, but projedted 
 and nearly completed a detailed reply to the arguments of 
 Mr. Savage upon the fubjedfc. It is only proper to fay that 
 the grounds on which Colonel Potter contended for the 
 truthfulnefs of the deed were, in almoft all particulars, effen- 
 tially different from thofe here advanced. 
 
 Within a few years the fubjedl has been refumed by the 
 Rev. John A. Vinton in a paper read before the New Eng¬ 
 land 
 
• • 
 
 Vll 
 
 land Hiftoric, Genealogical Society, and by the Rev. Dr. 
 Nathaniel Bouton in a difquifition which has been pro¬ 
 nounced before that and other kindred affociations, — each 
 taking ground againd the genuinenefs of the Wheelwright 
 deed; and the latter, at lead, producing fome new confid- 
 erations in fupport of his opinion. 
 
 A monograph concerning Wheelwright would be ob- 
 vioufly imperfect without a reference to this queftion, which 
 has occupied the attention, and divided the opinions, of 
 able hidorical inquirers. An attempt is made in this vol¬ 
 ume to date the argument in fupport of the difputed deed 
 fully, which has never before been done, and fairly, fo as to 
 guard the reader againd hady concludons. The paper 
 here given was read before the New England Hidoric, 
 Genealogical Society, upon the invitation of their Com¬ 
 mittee ; and the fact that it appears fubdantially in the form 
 in which it was delivered will explain fome of its peculiar¬ 
 ities of dyle. 
 
 The editor of this volume takes great pleafure in ac¬ 
 knowledging the courtefy and kindnefs with which his 
 applications for information and afddance have uniformly 
 been met. He is efpecially indebted to the Rev. Edmund 
 F. Slafter for many valuable fuggedions, and for numerous 
 fervices which have materially lightened the editorial talk; 
 to J. Wingate Thornton, Efq., for the generous ufe of rare 
 volumes from his choice collection of early New England 
 hidory; to John Langdon Sibley, Efq., for the privilege of 
 tranfcribing and afterwards verifying the printed copy of 
 Mercurius Americanus, a work of fuch rarity that it is 
 
 not to be found in any New England library except thofe 
 
 • * 
 
 of 
 
Vlll 
 
 of Harvard Univerfity and of the late Hon. George Brin- 
 ley; to David Puldfer, Efq., for copies from the Maffa- 
 chufetts Archives, and for the exercife of his unfurpaffed 
 knowledge of antique chirography in affuring the accuracy 
 of the reprint of the Fad-day Sermon ; to John Ward Dean, 
 Efq., and Samuel F. Haven, Efq., for defirable information 
 and ufeful fuggeftions; to Mrs. J. Farmer of Hingham for 
 kindly allowing the ufe of the original deeds of 1638 for the 
 purpofe of making facsimiles; and to the Maffachufetts 
 Hiftorical Society, the Congregational Library, and the 
 New England Hidoric, Genealogical Society, for the oppor¬ 
 tunity of confulting books and manufcripts. 
 
 This record cannot be clofed without a recognition of the 
 editor’s obligations to the late Samuel G. Drake, Efq., the 
 firft Prefident of the Society under whofe aufpices this 
 volume is produced. A defcendant from Wheelwright and 
 an earned ftudent of his times, Mr. Drake, though a model 
 of indudry, was always found ready, upon the editor’s fre¬ 
 quent applications, to impart from the dores of his own 
 knowledge, to confult the authorities in his familiar library, 
 and to fugged pofdble avenues for the acquidtion of all 
 needed information. His kind aid and encouragement will 
 ever be held in grateful remembrance. 
 
 Exeter, New Hampshire, 
 
 February 29, 1876. 
 
 / 
 
MEMOIR 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REVEREND JOHN WHEELWRIGHT. 
 
 HE birthplace of John Wheelwright was in that 
 part of Lincolnfhire known as the fens, on the 
 eaftern coaffc of England. The market town 
 of Alford, in that county, fituated twenty-four 
 miles from the city of Bolton, and about ten 
 from the fea, is the centre of a duller of hamlets, among 
 which are thofe of Saleby, Mumby, and Bilfby. John’ 
 Wheelwright was probably born at Saleby, where his father, 
 Robert Wheelwright, lived, and died in 1612. John’s 
 grandfather, who bore alfo the name of John, died in 
 Mumby the year before the death of Robert. 
 
 The exad date of John Wheelwright’s birth has not been 
 afcertained; circumltances render it probable that it was in 
 the early part of the year 1592. 1 Little is known of his 
 anceftors, except that they belonged to the great middle 
 * clafs 
 
 1 Col. Jofeph L. Chefter, in 21 New Regifter, where feveral fa< 5 ts given in 
 England Hiftorical and Genealogical the text were firft publifhed. 
 
2 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 clafs of fociety which gave to our country fo large a propor¬ 
 tion of her colonifts of enterprife and fterling worth. John’s 
 father was a landholder, and poffeffed fufficient means to 
 enable him to give his fon a thorough education, and we 
 may fafely affume that the boy exhibited bright parts, and a 
 defire for knowledge. 2 At about the age of eighteen he 
 was matriculated at the Univerfity of Cambridge. 
 
 No records of his college life have come down to us, but 
 a gleam of light is thrown upon fome of his youthful char- 
 adteriftics by a reported remark of no lefs a perfonage than 
 Oliver Cromwell, who was his fellow-collegian. “ I remember 
 the time,” faid the Lord Protedlor, “ when I was more afraid 
 of meeting Wheelwright at foot-ball, than I have been fince 
 of meeting an army in the field, for I was infallibly fure of 
 being tripped up by him.” To this may be added the ftate- 
 ment of Cotton Mather, that he had heard that “ when 
 Wheelwright was a young fpark at the Univerfity, he was 
 noted for a more than ordinary firoke at wreftling.” 3 From 
 this evidence it may be gathered that young Wheelwright 
 was of vigorous bodily conftitution, addidted to athletic exer- 
 cifes, and not lacking in fpirit or refolution. 
 
 He received at Sidney College his Bachelor’s degree in 
 1614, and that of Matter of Arts four years later. 4 For 
 feveral years after he left the Univerfity we have no definite 
 information where or how his time was fpent; but as he had 
 fallen heir to fome landed property in Lincolnfhire on the 
 death of his father, and alfo adminiftered on his efiate, it is 
 
 probable 
 
 2 1 Sprague’s American Pulpit, 83. 4 8 Mass. Hift. Collections (3d se- 
 
 3 3 Belknap’s Hift. New Hampftiire, ries), 248. 
 
 App’x No. 1. 
 
3 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 probable that he found employment there. Another attrac¬ 
 tion would naturally have drawn him thither; he was paying 
 his addreffes to Marie Storre, his future wife, a daughter of 
 the Rev. Thomas Storre, vicar of Bilfby. Some portion of 
 his time he alfo employed in preparing himfelf for taking 
 holy orders. On the eighth of November, 1621, he was 
 married, and on the ninth of April, 1623, after the death of 
 his father-in-law, was indudted, as his fucceffor, into the 
 vicarage of Bilfby. 5 
 
 Thus educated, and permanently eftablifhed in his chofen 
 profeffion, among his friends and kindred, a hufband and 
 foon a father, if Wheelwright had been a man of lefs con- 
 fcience and courage he would have been content with his 
 lot, which promifed him a life of refpedlability and eafe. 
 But he lived in an era of free inquiry into the authority of the 
 dogmas and ordinances of his church. A widely-extended 
 difpofition was manifefted among clergy and laity to re- 
 fufe obedience to certain of the ecclefiaftical requirements, 
 upon the ground that they favored of papiftry, and were 
 without warrant in Scripture. Attempts to enforce compli¬ 
 ance ferved only to confirm the recufants in their refiftance. 
 Many of the ableft and moil confcientious men of the time 
 were thus driven from the Englifli church into the various 
 forms of diffent. To thefe non-conformifts of all fhades of 
 opinion the generic name of Puritans was applied, at firft 
 in derifion, but afterwards as a grave, hiftoric defignation. 
 
 It was not in the nature of Wheelwright to keep aloof from 
 the fubjedts which were fo deeply agitating the religious 
 
 community. 
 
 5 21 N. E. Hift. and Gen. Regifter, 364. 
 
4 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 community. His convidlions impelled him into the Puritan 
 ranks, and as he was of too frank and independent a fpirit 
 to leave his pofition in doubt, he unqueffionably proclaimed 
 his fentiments without referve. But he muff have felt that 
 he was thenceforth liable at any hour to be oufted from his 
 living and his home. He continually faw around him others 
 quitting the land of their nativity, becaufe of opinions fimilar 
 to his own, to feek refuge on foreign fhores. The queftion 
 could not have failed to prefent itfelf frequently to his mind 
 what courfe he fliould purfue in the not improbable event 
 of his being driven to leave England. 
 
 Whether he adlually took any fteps toward providing 
 himfelf a new home beyond the fea there is no abfolute 
 certainty. But for above a century all our hiftory reprefented 
 that he made a purchafe of American lands, in 1629, from 
 Paffaconaway and other Indian fagamores, comprifing 
 more than an entire county in the prefent State of New 
 Hampfhire. 6 If the flatement is true, he muft have left his 
 parochial charge in England and croffed the Atlantic, to 
 accomplifh the tranfaftion. In recent years it has b£en 
 argued that no fuch purchafe was made, and that the deed 
 purporting to convey the lands was a forgery of later date 
 and by other hands. Without prefuming to pronounce 
 pofitively upon the queftion in the prefent defective date of 
 the evidence, it may well be doubted if the new-found argu¬ 
 ments are fufficient to outweigh the authority of the old 
 hiftory. Not to- interrupt the progrefs of our narrative, 
 
 however, 
 
 G For the authorities upon this fub- upon the Wheelwright deed of 1629, 
 jedt, the reader is referred to the paper infra. 
 
IVheelwright . 
 
 5 
 
 however, the difcuffion of this point has been referved for a 
 fupplementary chapter. 
 
 Wheelwright held the vicarage of Bilfby about ten years, 
 and was a faithful and ufeful minifter. “ He was inftru- 
 mental in the converfion of many fouls,” fays Brook, “ and 
 highly efteemed among ferious Chriftians.” 7 The fragmen¬ 
 tary parochial records which have come down to us afford 
 but fcanty information concerning him during this period. 
 His infant fon William died in 1627 ; his daughter Catharine 
 was baptized in 1628, and his daughter Mary was baptized 
 and died in 1632. The tranfcripts of the Bilfby records 
 were figned by him as late as 1631, thus fhowing that his 
 parochial charge continued till that date. In January, 1633, 
 his fucceffor was induCted, though according to the record 
 Wheelwright had neither refigned nor been removed; 
 apparently fome caufe exifted which warranted his ecclefi- 
 aftical fuperior in treating the vicarage as vacant. 8 Whether 
 this was owing to his Puritanical views, we have no means 
 of afcertaining; but it is certain that either then, or fhortly 
 afterwards, Wheelwright was filenced for non-conformity. 9 
 
 For the fucceeding three years he appears to have had 
 no fixed abode. For a time he lived privately near Lincoln; 
 and he is heard of in the neighborhood of Anderby, hard by 
 his old home in Lincolnfhire. Though forbidden to exercife 
 his clerical functions, he apparently made no fecret of his 
 
 religious convictions. He became recognized as a leading 
 
 man 
 
 7 3 Lives of the Puritans, 472. 
 
 8 The language of the mandate is, 
 
 “ jam l 1 tie et de jure vac an ? 1 
 
 9 Lives of the Puritans, ubiftijra. 
 
6 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 man in the Puritan party, and miniftered to their fpiritual 
 wants in a private way. During this period he made the 
 acquaintance of a perfon who was fhortly after to experience, 
 like himfelf, the hardships of a frontier life in the weftern 
 world, and who, whatever the errors of his earlier years, 10 
 acquired an honored and revered name, at a later period, in 
 the land of his birth. Hanferd Knollys, then a young man, 
 attracted by the high repute of Wheelwright among his 
 non-conformiffc brethren, vifited him, and, after repeated 
 conferences with him, felt conftrained to adopt fome of his 
 religious views. 11 
 
 There can be little doubt that Wheelwright had been for 
 fome time contemplating emigration; and in the beginning 
 of April, 1636, he embarked for New England. The wife 
 of his youth had died, we know not how long before, and 
 left him the care of young children, and he had again 
 married. His fecond wife was Mary, daughter of Edward 
 Hutchinfon, of Alford ; 12 and with her and his five children 
 he landed at Bofton, in the Maffachufetts Bay, on the twenty- 
 fixth of May, 1636. He did not find himfelf abfolutely a 
 
 ftranger 
 
 10 Of the moft ferious delinquency 
 imputed to Knollys, there is apparently 
 no other evidence than hearfay. See 
 5 New Hamp. Hift. Soc. Collections, 
 175-7. 
 
 u Autobiography of Knollys, 18. 
 Drake’s Hift. Bofton, 220, n. 
 
 12 Ignorance of Wheelwright’s fec¬ 
 ond marriage has led feveral writers to 
 wonder how he could have been a 
 brother-in-law of Mrs. Hutchinfon. 
 There can be no doubt about the fact, 
 however. Wheelwright’s will fhows that 
 he was twice married ; and, as we have 
 
 the beft reafon for believing that he did 
 not remarry after his fettlement in this 
 country, he muft have done fo before 
 his emigration. The name of his fec¬ 
 ond wife was Mary, and that fhe was a 
 Hutchinfon, is proved by the expref- 
 fions, “brother” and “lifter,” always 
 ufed by both families in referring to 
 each other. Moreover, the elder Mrs. 
 Hutchinfon accompanied Mrs. Wheel¬ 
 wright to Exeter and Wells, which, as 
 fhe had other children in this country, 
 fhe would never have done, unlefs the 
 latter had been her daughter. 
 
7 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 ftrange r in a ftrange land. The Rev. John Cotton, teacher 
 of the church, he knew well by repute, and probably by 
 perfonal acquaintance, in the old country; and Wheelwright’s 
 brother-in-law, William Hutchinfon, with his wife Anne, who 
 was foon to become one of the mod; noted characters in the 
 Bay, had been refident in Bofton about two years. On the 
 12th of June, 1636, Wheelwright, with his wife, was admitted 
 to the church, and foon became highly efteemed, acquiring 
 the confidence and fupport of many of the moft confiderable 
 inhabitants of the colony. 
 
 Mrs. Anne Hutchinfon was a woman of remarkable force 
 of character, intellectual power, and acquirements, as well as 
 of unaffeCted piety. As a nurfe of the fick, efpecially in 
 the ailments peculiar to her fex, fhe was fingularly fkilful, 
 and cheerfully rendered gratuitous fervice to all who were 
 in need; fo that in the infant fettlement, where few means 
 of alleviating fuffering were to be found, it is not ftrange 
 that fhe came to be efteemed as little lefs than a minifter- 
 ing angel. In religion fhe was an enthufiaft, and on points 
 of fpeculative doCtrine ran off into ideas widely variant from 
 thofe generally entertained in the Maffachufetts Bay. She 
 held weekly meetings of the fitters of the church at her 
 houfe, and difcuffed with them the fubjeCts of the minifters’ 
 fermons. On thefe occafions Mrs. Hutchinfon proclaimed 
 and advocated her own peculiar tenets, and criticifed thofe 
 of the clergy, from which fhe diffented. It is reported that 
 flie claimed that thofe whofe opinions accorded with her 
 own were under “ a covenant of faith,” while fhe pronounced 
 all the minifters of the Bay, except Cotton, whofe teachings 
 
 fhe 
 
8 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 file had enjoyed in old England, and her brother-in-law 
 Wheelwright, to be under “a covenant of works;” 13 an in¬ 
 vidious diftinftion, not calculated to conciliate the perfons 
 embraced in the latter category. 
 
 It is not deemed neceffary or ufeful in this fketch to enter 
 into a detailed explanation of the religious diffenfions of 
 that period. 14 Their theological polemics, indeed, paffed all 
 modern underftanding. Some recent writers have regarded 
 them as mere jargon; differences of words without ideas; 
 while others have gone to the oppofite extreme of profeffmg 
 to fee a higher meaning in them than the language employed 
 naturally imports. The fimple fadl is that metaphyfical 
 difcuffion, of the leaf! profitable kind, was the fafhion of the 
 time, and was adapted to the tafte of the religious community. 
 And there feems no reafon for fuppofmg that the difputation 
 in the prefent inftance poffeffed any peculiar efoteric fignifi- 
 cance. An examination of the Faft-day fermon, and of 
 “ Mercurius Americanus,” in the prefent volume, will con¬ 
 vince the reader how much that was merely fpeculative and 
 how little that was capable of any practical application, 
 entered into the religious controverfies of the period. 
 
 Thofe 
 
 13 If Mrs. Hutchinfon adtually made 
 this remark, it would not be juft to af- 
 fume that Wheelwright was willing to 
 indorfe it. The bandying of epithets 
 is a branch of polemics in which no dif- 
 putant ought to be held refponftble for 
 another’s words. 
 
 14 Winthrop fays that Mrs. Hutchin¬ 
 fon “ brought over with her two dan¬ 
 gerous errors : i. That the perfon of 
 the Holy Ghoft dwells in a juftified per¬ 
 fon ; 2. That no fandlification can help 
 to evidence to us our juftification.” 
 
 He adds that ‘‘from thefe two grew 
 many branches.” It was the “branch¬ 
 es,” in other words, the inferences, 
 which her opponents chofe to draw 
 from her avowed dodtrines, that formed 
 the chief ground of contention in the 
 church and the community. It is 
 doubtful if any perfons could have 
 been found in the country who held 
 a quarter part of the “erroneous opin¬ 
 ions ” condemned by the Cambridge 
 Synod. 
 
9 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 Thofe who differed from Mrs. Hutchinfon and her adher¬ 
 ents applied to them the term “ Antinomians; 15 to which 
 they retorted by ftyling the others “ Legalifts.” Wheelwright 
 had been but few months in the country before he came to 
 be confidered the champion of the Antinomian party, though 
 he never embraced the extreme views of Mrs. Hutchinfon. 16 
 Cotton alfo for a time Tided with them, but was at length 
 overborne by the oppofition of his clerical brethren. In 
 the Bofton church were two men of learning, ability, and 
 commanding pofition, who fteadily oppofed the Antinomian 
 herefy, — the Rev. John Wilfon, the paftor, and John Win- 
 throp, one of the principal founders of the colony, and many 
 years its governor; the latter fingularly well qualified to deal 
 with a difficulty that demanded the exercife alike of theo¬ 
 logical learning, prudence, and addrefs. 
 
 It is problematical whether the enthufiaftic notions dif- 
 feminated by Mrs. Hutchinfon would not have been fuffered 
 to die a natural death, as they would, probably, have speedily 
 done, if unnoticed and unrefifted, inftead of being exalted 
 into matter of importance by formal oppofition, had not 
 the governor of the colony, Henry Vane, been implicated 
 in them. Vane was the heir of an ariftocratic houfe in Eng¬ 
 land, who had embraced the religipus views of the Puri¬ 
 tans, and in confequence thereof had come over, about a year 
 before this time, to New England. He was able, well edu¬ 
 cated, and confcientious; and admiration for his character, 
 
 not 
 
 15 By fome writers they are alfo 16 i Savage’s Winthrop, *201. Cot- 
 called “ Familifts,” though improperly, ton’s Way of the Congregational 
 as would appear from the definition of Churches Cleared, 60. 1 Felt’s Ec- 
 
 the word. clef. Hift. of New England, 349. 
 
I o Memoir of 
 
 not lefs than his high birth, had induced the freemen of 
 Maffachufetts to eledl him their governor, though yet but 
 twenty-four years of age. It is not ft range that the eleva¬ 
 tion to the chief magiftracy of a mere youth, juft arrived in 
 the colony, with no ties to bind him permanently to her 
 interefts, fhould have been viewed with jealoufy and appre- 
 herifion by the gentlemen of mature years, who had em¬ 
 barked their lives and fortunes in founding the fettlement 
 of the Maffachufetts Bay. And while there is no doubt that 
 they confidered his adoption of the extravagant tenets of 
 Mrs. Hutchinfon as proof of a difpofition unfitted to exer- 
 cife the duties of a chief ruler over the colony, it is equally 
 clear that they recognized with fatisfadfion the fadf that it 
 afforded them a vantage-ground for difpoffeffmg him of the 
 reins of power. They knew that the vaft influence which 
 at that day belonged to the clerical calling could eaflly be 
 turned, in all the churches outflde of Boflon, againfl: the 
 fedtaries who fpoke flightingly of the great body of that 
 profefflon, and was fufflcient to aroufe fuch a florm of oppo- 
 fltion among the people as would fweep Vane and all the 
 party with which he was identified from every place of 
 authority. And perhaps it could hardly have been antici¬ 
 pated at that time that the adoption of this courfe would 
 awaken in the colony a fpirit which would not down at the 
 bidding of the civil or eccleflaflical authority, but could only 
 be crufhed out by the firong hand. 
 
 The clergy were early in the field. On the twenty-fifth 
 of Odtober, 1636, four days after the firfi; mention of the 
 Hutchinfon fchifm by Winthrop in his Journal, the word 
 
 had 
 
M 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 had been paffed through the ranks of the minifters, and 
 they affembled in full conclave in Bofton, to concert meaf- 
 ures for dealing with the nafcent herefy. 17 Their meeting 
 was flirewdly timed in the feffion of the General Court; for 
 the civil power was alfo to be invoked, and who fo compe¬ 
 tent to fhape the views of the legiflators as their fpiritual 
 guides ? The minifters held an interview with Wheelwright 
 and Cotton, both of whom gave them apparent fatisfadfion 
 refpedting their religious pofitions. What meafures were 
 adopted at the meeting did not tranfpire. 
 
 About the fame time, fome members of the Bofton 
 church, fympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinfon, brought for¬ 
 ward a propofal to have Wheelwright fettled over them as 
 a fecond teacher, in conjunction with Wilfon and Cotton. 18 
 To this plan Winthrop objedted,— that the church was 
 already well fupplied with able minifters, and that Wheel¬ 
 wright had promulgated unfound dodlrines. Governor 
 Vane made fome remarks in reply, in defence of Wheel¬ 
 wright, and Wheelwright himfelf explained the occafion of 
 his expreffmg the views objedted to. Winthrop rejoined 
 that, though he himfelf might probably agree with Wheel¬ 
 wright, and “ thought reverendly ” of his talents and piety, 
 and could be content to live under his miniftry, yet, as he 
 was “ apt to raife doubtful difputations, he could not con- 
 fent to choofe him to that place.” The friends of Wheel¬ 
 wright 
 
 17 i Sav. Winthrop, *201. erally on Winthrop’s Journal and the 
 
 18 To avoid the neceffity of frequent Short Story of the Rife, Reign, and 
 notes, it may be ftated, once for all, Ruin of the Antinomians, &c. In 
 that the account of the Antinomian cafes where other authorities are relied 
 controverfy and proceedings againft upon, they are defignated. 
 Wheelwright, here given, is bafed gen- 
 
12 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 wright preffed the matter no farther; but, as feveral of the 
 Bofton communion were defirous to form a church at Mount 
 Wollafton, where they refided and cultivated farms, it was 
 voted, without objection, upon their application, that Wheel¬ 
 wright be affigned to them as their preacher. 1 He at once 
 commenced his paftoral labors at that place, afterwards 
 called Braintree, now Quincy, eight or nine miles foutherly 
 from Bofton. 
 
 It feems to have been fyftematically arranged that from 
 this time forward the theological differences in the Bofton 
 church fhould never be fuffered to dumber. Difcuffions 
 were moved, in oral and written form, at brief intervals, in 
 which the reprefentatives of what may be called the Win- 
 throp and Vane parties rekindled their oppofition; there 
 were repeated interpofitions of the great body of the clergy; 
 while Mrs. Hutchinfon continued to hold her ledtures, which 
 were more fully attended than ever. The refult was that, 
 in the courfe of a few months, all the members of the 
 Bofton church, except two or three beftde Wilfon and Win- 
 throp, had either become tinctured with the opinions of 
 Mrs. Hutchinfon, or at leaft had made up their minds to 
 ftand by her and her friends againft perfecution. 19 When it 
 is remembered that at the time Wheelwright was propofed 
 as a teacher of that church, the party to which he belonged 
 was not ftrong enough to carry the projedt, this change of 
 
 fentime nts 
 
 19 Cotton denies the ftatement of fence of erroneous perfons, another to 
 Baylie, in his DilTuafive from the Er- fpeak in defence of errors. Multitudes 
 rors of the Time, that Bofton was fo there were that thought well of the per- 
 far infected with Antinomianifm “ that fons, who knew nothing of their er- 
 few there were untainted.” “ It is one rors,” &c. — Cotton ' 1 s Way , 87. 
 thing,” fays Cotton, “ to fpeak in the de- 
 
13 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 fentiments well illudrates the effect of oppofition to a new 
 religious dogma. The traveller in the fable only hugged 
 more clofely the cloak which the wind drove to wred from 
 him. 
 
 So far as appears, Wheelwright difcharged his paftoral 
 duties faithfully and acceptably at Mount Wolladon. Yet he 
 was regarded as one of the foremod members of the Anti- 
 nomian party, and was evidently marked to be made an ex¬ 
 ample of by the powerful combination which was determined 
 upon its downfall. On the nineteenth 20 of January, 1636-7, 
 nearly three months after he had been affigned to the charge 
 of the congregation at Mount Wollafton, a general Faft 
 was kept throughout the colony, on account of various 
 calamities abroad and at home, among the latter being the 
 diffenfions in the churches. On this occafion Wheelwright 
 preached a ferrnon in Bofton, 21 which was made the occafion 
 of extraordinary and harfh proceedings againft him, on which 
 account, as well as becaufe it is one of his few furviving pro¬ 
 ductions, it is included in this volume. 
 
 RefpeCting this difcourfe divers opinions have been ex- 
 preffed by later writers. While fome, efpecially laymen, 
 have been unable to difcover in it any thing threatening, or 
 encouraging injury to the date, others, and notably clergy¬ 
 men accepting the religious fydem of the Puritans, have 
 regarded it as cenfurable and tending to mifchief. The 
 
 truth 
 
 20 Winthrop ftates this, under date of 21 i Felt’s Eccl. Hift. 269. Short 
 the 20th ; the copy of the fermon in the Story, &c. 52, paragraph 5. 1 Neal’s 
 
 fecretary’s office gives the 16th as the Hift. New England (2d ed.), 186. 
 day of its delivery, as does the Glafs 
 for the People of New England; but 
 the records fix the day as the 19th. 
 
14 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 truth is that, like many productions of its clafs at that day, 
 it contains frequent expreffions fufceptible of different inter¬ 
 pretations. He who choofes to underhand them in a literal 
 fenfe may eafily argue that they are violent and inflamma¬ 
 tory ; 22 but, tefted by the rules of conflruction ufually applied 
 to like productions, they muff be adjudged, we think, to deal 
 with nothing more fubftantial than fymbolical fwords and 
 figurative firebrands. 23 And thefe, we apprehend, were then 
 too common in every pulpit to fuggeft the idea of actual vio¬ 
 lence to the moft vivid imagination. But the fermon was 
 feized upon as the means of inflicting a blow upon a promi¬ 
 nent reprefentative of the obnoxious opinions. 
 
 On the ninth of the following March, the General Court 
 affembled, attended by an advifory council of the clergy of 
 the colony, 24 who had deferred all lectures for three weeks, 
 in order that they might have no hindrance in making a 
 final difpofition of the Antinomian imbroglio. Wheel¬ 
 wright was fent for on the firft day of the feffion ; but it 
 was not till two or three days later that matters were ripe 
 
 for 
 
 22 Dr. Palfrey, in his valuable Hiftory 
 of New England, attributes more incen-* 
 diary qualifies to the difcourfe than it 
 adlually proved to poffefs. In note (i) 
 to page 479 °f volume i, he fays : “ It 
 was perhaps, well, that this fermon was 
 delivered at Braintree, and that the 
 angry men whom it ftimulated did not 
 pafs Winthrop’s houfe in returning to 
 their homes.” In reality, the fermon 
 was preached in Bolton, within a Hone’s 
 throw of Winthrop’s houfe ; and the 
 fa< 5 t that it led to no tumultuous demon- 
 ftration of any kind may well induce 
 thofe who have thought that danger 
 
 to the public peace and fecurity was 
 threatened by Wheelwright’s teachings 
 to give the fubjedt a candid reconsid¬ 
 eration. 
 
 23 Wheelwright himfelf fays in the 
 fermon, “ The children of God . . . 
 muft fight and fight with fpirituall weap¬ 
 ons, for the weapons of our warfare are 
 not carnall, but fpirituall.” 
 
 24 Samuel Groom, a Quaker, in his 
 Glafs for the People of New England, 
 publifhed at London in 1676, fays the 
 court confifted of “ Henry Vane, Gov¬ 
 ernor, Twelve Magiftrates, Twelve 
 Priefts, and Thirty Three Deputies.” 
 
i5 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 for his arraignment. He was then fummoned before the 
 legiflative and judicial tribunal, and informed that he was 
 fent for “ to fatisfy the court about fome paffages of his fer- 
 mon, which feemed to be offenfive.” Thereupon was pro¬ 
 duced what purported to be a copy of his Faft-day dif- 
 courfe, and he “was demanded if he would own it.” 25 He 
 very naturally declined to accept the report of another, 
 probably unfriendly, party as a true verfion of his lan¬ 
 guage ; but, meaning to ftand by what he had faid, he laid 
 before the affembly his own copy of the fermon. He was 
 then remanded, but defired to be ready when again called 
 for. 
 
 The next day he was again cited before the Legiflature. 
 At this point a petition was prefented, figned by more than 
 forty members of the Bofton church, praying that the Legif¬ 
 lature, when adting as a judicial court, would fit with open 
 doors, and would refrain from paffmg upon any queftions of 
 religious doctrine, which the eccjefiaftical tribunals could 
 fettle. The petition was evidently in the intereft of Wheel¬ 
 wright, and its prayer at the prefent day would be con- 
 
 fidered 
 
 25 This “copy” muft have been the 
 refult of an attempt to take down the 
 language of Wheelwright “in charac¬ 
 ters,” as the phrafe was, by fome fhort- 
 hand writer of the day. This fa6t 
 fhows how clofely Wheelwright’s ut¬ 
 terances were watched by thofe who 
 fought for caufe of offence againft him. 
 His preaching in Bofton on that day 
 appears to have been accidental. Cot¬ 
 ton gave the regular fermon, after 
 which Wheelwright, being prefent, was 
 called upon to “exercife as a private 
 
 brother.” — Short Story , 52. That he 
 was to be in Bofton was probably not 
 generally known ; that he would de¬ 
 liver an elaborate difcourfe no one 
 could have forefeen ; for, if that had 
 been underftood, it would have been 
 mentioned by Winthrop, or fome 
 other contemporary. Yet there was 
 the inevitable reporter, note-book in 
 hand, refolved that nothing fhould fall 
 from Wheelwright’s lips that did not 
 go down in black and white. 
 
16 Memoir of 
 
 fidered eminently reafonable; but the Legiflature made 
 fhort anfwer to it on the back of the paper itfelf. 
 
 The examination of Wheelwright then began with clofed 
 doors. He was informed that the Court had confidered of 
 his fermon, and defired to afk him fome queflions “ to clear 
 his meaning.” Wheelwright, in reply, inquired whether he 
 was fent for as an innocent perfon or guilty. He was 
 informed, “ as neither, but as fufpected only.” He then afked 
 who were his accufers. The Court anfwered, “ his fermon, 
 which being acknowledged by him, they would proceed 
 ex-officio? At this expreffion, fome of the friends of the 
 accufed, who were members of the affembly, exclaimed 
 indignantly that the proceeding favored of the courfe of the 
 High Commission, 26 — a remark which was certainly not 
 unjuftified by the inquifitorial manner in which the ar¬ 
 raignment was conducted. Wheelwright, apparently by ad¬ 
 vice of his friends, then declined to anfwer interrogatories, 
 and was remanded. 
 
 In the afternoon he was again brought in. All the min- 
 ifters were prefent, and, the doors being thrown open to the 
 public, there was a great affembly. The Faft-day fermon 
 was produced, and many paffages read from it, which were 
 acknowledged and juftified by their author. Wheelwright 
 was again inquired of, as he had been the day before, if he 
 did not mean by the expreffion, “ thofe under a covenant 
 
 of 
 
 26 This arbitrary tribunal, of unlim- to any fufpedted perfon an oath called 
 ited power, was eftablifhed during the “ ex-officio,” which bound him to an- 
 reign of Queen Elizabeth. It is de- fwer all queflions, even though he might 
 fcribed in Hume’s England and in thereby be obliged to criminate him- 
 Neal’s Hiflory of the Puritans. The felf. 
 commiffion was authorized to adminifler 
 
Wheelwright . 
 
 17 
 
 of works,” the minifters and other Chriftians of the churches 
 in the colony. He would admit nothing of the kind, but 
 anfwered fagacioufly that, “ if he were fhown any that walked 
 in fuch a way as he had defc-ribed to be a covenant of works, 
 them he did mean.” 27 
 
 Finding he could not be drawn into a wholefale admif- 
 fion which fuited their purpofe, his profecutors proceeded to 
 examine witneffes about another fermon of his, which had 
 given them caufe of offence. The defign of this ftep plainly 
 was to obtain teftimony that Wheelwright claffed all thofe 
 who difagreed with him in religious opinion as under a 
 covenant of works; then, as he had in his Faft-day fermon 
 denounced thofe coming under that defcription as Anti- 
 chrifts, unbelievers, and enemies of the Lord, it would fol¬ 
 low that he intended to include the great body of the clergy 
 and church-members in the denunciation; O. E. D. 28 
 
 The 
 
 27 Felt afferts, in I Eccles. Hift. 273 
 that Wheelwright confelled that he 
 meant “ his opponents in dodtrine ” by 
 the expreffion thofe under a covenant 
 of works.” But the authorities do not 
 fupport this ftatement; that is, if we 
 are to underftand his opponents in doc¬ 
 trine to be the great body of the clergy 
 in the colony. Throughout his exami¬ 
 nation, Wheelwright refufed to admit 
 that he fo intended. Groom fays that 
 he bid the court prove their charges by 
 Scripture ; that he “ offered to prove 
 his Dodtrine by Scriptures ; ” and that 
 they “ Arraigned him, Judged him, and 
 Condemned him, but could not difprove 
 his Dodtrine,” — Glafs for the People 
 of N. E. 4, 5. 
 
 ^ The only account we poffefs of the 
 teftimony alluded to in the text is de¬ 
 
 rived from Groom’s Glafs for the Peo¬ 
 ple of New England, pp. 6, 7. Richard 
 Collicott, he fays, bore witnefs that 
 Wheelwright’s “ Ufe in his Sermon 
 was to put a Difference between the 
 Covenant of Works and a Covenant of 
 Grace, and I do conceive that he did 
 drive againft the things now in queftion. 
 And for the Light that is revealed by 
 the Spirit, he did plainly and pundtually 
 fay, That in that cafe there was nothing 
 to be feen but the Glorious Light of the 
 Spirit breaking in upon the Soul in an 
 abfolute Promife.” According to the 
 fame authority, the teftimony of William 
 Spencer was as follows : “ Wheelwright 
 teaches that the knowledge of our Sanc¬ 
 tification, as well as our Juftification, is 
 only by our Faith in Chrift, and that in 
 the Covenant of Grace nothing is re¬ 
 vealed 
 
 3 
 
18 Memoir of 
 
 The Court, having put in the evidence on this point, were 
 prepared to propofe, by way of climax, the final queftion to 
 the clerical council, “ Whether, by that which you have 
 heard concerning Mafier Wheelwright’s fermon, and that 
 which was witneffed concerning him, ye do conceive that 
 the minifters in this country do walk in and teach, fuch a 
 way of falvation and evidencing thereof as he defcribeth and 
 accounteth to be a covenant of works ? ” The elders de- 
 fired a feafon for confideration before anfwering the quef¬ 
 tion. Even in thofe contentious times it muff have been 
 difficult for fome of them to perfuade themfelves that a con- 
 fcientious, diligent, pious brother of their own order meant 
 deliberately to clafs them with unbelievers and outcafls, fimply 
 on account of a difference of opinion upon fome abftrufe 
 and fubtle points of dodlrine. But the fuccefs of the whole 
 profecution hung upon the reply they fhould give to the 
 interrogatory fubmitted to them. A night fufficed to filence 
 all fcruples, and the next morning the minifters returned 
 into court with an affirmative anfwer, “ in the very words of 
 the queftion,” — all fave Cotton concurring therein. 
 
 The Court had then no difficulty in coming to a refolu- 
 tion that Wheelwright was guilty of “ fedition and contempt 
 of the civil authority,” which was duly entered of record. 
 
 But 
 
 vealed but Jefus Chrift and his Right- Court, and fo judges of Wheelwright, 
 eoufnefs freely given to the Soul, and as well as witnefies againlt him. We 
 the knowledge of it comes by Faith : learn from the Short Story, 46, that the 
 and this is contrary to the DoCtrine proceedings were all taken down by 
 preacht in New England, for it is com- Wheelwright’s fpecial friends, “by 
 monly taught in New England, That a characters.” It is a matter of regret 
 man may prove his Juftification by his that their report has not been preferved 
 SanCtification.” Collicott and Spencer to our day. 
 were both members of the General 
 
19 
 
 Wheelwright • 
 
 But we gladly welcome evidence that this refult was not 
 reached without extraordinary effort. William Coddington, 
 a witnefs of the higheft character, who was a member of the 
 Court, has left his teftimony that, with Governor Vane and 
 himfelf, the majority of the magiftrates and deputies were 
 for two days oppofed to the banifhment of Wheelwright; 
 “ but the priefts got two of the magiftrates on their fide, and 
 fo got the major part of them.” 29 
 
 The opinion of the Court having been declared, Wheel¬ 
 wright was ordered to appear at the next feffion to abide 
 fentence. It was then moved that he be enjoined from 
 preaching in the mean time. This propofal to introduce 
 in their new home one of the arbitrary meafures which they 
 had branded as intolerance not to be endured from the 
 Englifh church, the Legiflature were wife enough to refer to 
 the confideration of their fpiritual advifers. A precedent fo 
 dangerous to their own independence was not likely to 
 receive much favor from the elders; and they recommended 
 that the matter be fubmitted to the church of Bofton, who, 
 it was well underftood, would be in favor of giving the larg¬ 
 ed liberty of fpeech to their favorite brother. 
 
 Governor Vane and fome of the magiftrates and deputies 
 who did not concur in the finding of the majority, requefted 
 that their diffent thereto might be placed upon the records; 
 but this was refuted by the Court. They then tendered a 
 proteft, which was alfo rejected, upon the plea that it juftified 
 
 Wheelwright 
 
 29 Letter of Coddington to Ralph fadt that Vane was out of the country 
 Fretwell, 2 Felt’s Eccl. Hift. 611. before the final fentence was pro- 
 That this muft refer to the prefent nounced againft Wheelwright, 
 adtion of the Court is proved by the 
 
20 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 Wheelwright and reflected upon the Court. The majority 
 would, indeed, have allowed them to fubfcribe their fimple 
 diffent to the words of the record; but apparently they dif- 
 dained any compromife. 
 
 A remonftrance was then fpeedily prepared, and figned 
 by “above three (core” perfons, among whom were many 
 of the principal inhabitants of the colony, and on the ninth 
 of March prefented to the General Court. As peremptory, 
 and, in feveral cafes, fevere punifhment was fubfequently in¬ 
 flicted upon thofe who fubfcribed this paper, for their temer¬ 
 ity in indulging in too much plainnefs of fpeech to the 
 alleged “ difhonor and contempt ” of their rulers, it is thought 
 advifable to infert the offenfive article here in full, as an 
 indication of the animus of the feveral parties. 
 
 Wee whofe names are under written (have diligently obferved this hon¬ 
 oured Courts proceedings againft our deare and reverend brother in Chrift 
 Mr. Wheel, now under cenfure of the Court, for the truth of Chrift) wee do 
 humbly befeech this honourable Court to accept this Remonftrance and 
 Petition of ours, in all due fubmiftion tendred to your Worfhips. 
 
 For firft, whereas our beloved Brother Mr. Wheel, is cenfured for con¬ 
 tempt by the greater part of this honoured Court, wee defire your Worfhips 
 to confider the ftncere intention of our Brother to promote your end in the 
 day of Faft, for whereas wee do perceive your principall intention the day 
 of faft looked chiefely at the publick peace of the Churches, our Reverend 
 Brother did to his beft ftrength, and as the Lord aftifted him, labour to 
 promote your end and therefore indevoured to draw us neerer unto Chrift, 
 the head of our union, that fo wee might bee eftablifhed in peace, which 
 wee conceive to bee the true way, fandtified of God, to obtaine your end, 
 and therefore deferves no fuch cenfure, as wee conceive. 
 
 Secondly, Whereas our deere Brother is cenfured of fedition, wee befeech 
 your Worfhips to confider that either the perfon condemned muft bee cul¬ 
 pable of fome feditious fabt, or his dobtrine muft bee feditious or muft 
 
 breed 
 
Wheelwright . 
 
 2 I 
 
 breed fedition in the hearts of his hearers, or elfe wee know not upon 
 what ground hee fliould bee cenfured. Now to the firft, wee have not 
 heard any that have witneffed againft our brother for any feditious fa6t. 
 Secondly, neither was the do6trine it felf, being no other but the very 
 expreffions of the Holy Ghoft himfelfe, and therefore cannot juftly be 
 branded with fedition. Thirdly, if you look at the effe6ts of his Dodtrine 
 upon the hearers, it hath not ftirred up fedition in us, not fo much as by 
 accident; wee have not drawn the fword as fometimes Peter did, rathly, 
 neither'have wee refcued our innocent Brother, as fometimes the Ifraelites 
 did Jonathan , and yet they did not feditioufly. The Covenant of free 
 grace held forth by our Brother hath taught us rather to become humble 
 fuppliants to your Worlhips, and if wee fliould not prevaile, wee would 
 rather with patience give our cheekes to the fmiters. Since therefore the 
 Teacher, the Dodtrine, and the hearers bee moft free from fedition (as wee 
 conceive) wee humbly befeech you in the name of the Lord Jefus Chriffc, 
 your Judge and ours, and for the honour of this Court and the proceed¬ 
 ings thereof, that you will bee pleafed either to make it appeare to us, and 
 to all the world, to whom the knowledge of all thefe things will come, 
 wherein the fedition lies, or elfe acquit our Brother of fuch a cenfure. 
 
 Further, wee befeech you remember the old method of Satan, the 
 ancient enemy of free Grace in all ages of the Churches, who hath raifed 
 up fuch calumnies againft the faithfull Prophets of God. Eliah was called 
 the troubler of Ifrael , i King. 18. 17, 18. Amos was charged for confpi- 
 racy, Amos , 7. 10. Paul was counted a peftilent fellow, or moover of fedi¬ 
 tion, and a ring-leader of a Sect, Acts , 24. 5. and Chrift himfelfe, as well 
 as Paul, was charged to bee a Tehcher of New DoHrine, Mark , 1. 27. 
 Acts , 17. 19. Now wee befeech you confider, whether that old ferpent 
 work not after his old method, even in our daies. 
 
 « 
 
 Further, wee befeech you confider the danger of medling againft the 
 Prophets of God, Pfal. 105. 14, 15, for what yee doe unto them the Lord 
 Jefus takes as done unto himfelfe ; if you hurt any of his members, the 
 head is very fenfible of it: for fo faith the Lord of Hofts, Hee that toucheth 
 you, toucheth the apple of mine eye, Zach. 2 . 8 . And better a mill-ftone 
 were hanged about our neckes, and that wee were caft into the sea, then 
 that wee fhould offend any of thefe little ones which beleeve on him, 
 Mat. 18. 6. 
 
 And 
 
22 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 And laftly, we befeech you confider how you fhould ftand in relation to 
 us, as nurfing Fathers, which give us incouragement to promote our hum¬ 
 ble requefts to you, or elfe we would fay with the Prophet, If a. 22. 4, 
 Looke from me that I may weep bitterly, Labour not to comfort me, &c.; 
 or as fer. 9. 2. O that I had in the Wilderneffe a lodging place of a way¬ 
 faring man. And thus have we made knowne our griefes and defires to 
 your Worfhips, and leave them upon record with the Lord and with you, 
 knowing that if we fhould receive repulfe from you, with the Lord we 
 fhall find grace. 30 
 
 It is needlefs to fay that the remonftrance produced no 
 figns of relenting among thofe who were carrying on the 
 profecution againft Wheelwright. 
 
 The next meeting of the Legiflature was held on the fuc- 
 ceeding feventeenth of May. It was the time of the general 
 election of colonial officers. The party oppofed to Vane 
 and the Antinomian movement, and determined to replace 
 Winthrop in the gubernatorial feat, had left no done un¬ 
 turned to fecure fuccefs at the polls. Their own ftrength 
 lay in the country; their opponents’ in the capital. They 
 had procured the place of election to be changed from Bof- 
 ton, where the almoft univerfal feeling in favor of Vane 
 might have exercifed much influence on the refult, to New¬ 
 town, now Cambridge. They had alfo taken care that the 
 freemen from the diflant towns, notwithflanding they were 
 permitted by law to fend in their votes by proxy, fhould be 
 prefent in perfon in fufficient numbers to infure the pre¬ 
 dominance of their party in any contingency. 
 
 It was manifeft at the outfet that Vane’s fupporters were 
 outnumbered. When he propofed, before proceeding to the 
 
 choice 
 
 30 Short Story, 21. 
 
23 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 choice of officers, to read a petition from the people of Bof- 
 ton, intended, probably, to take the fenfe of the great body 
 of the freemen in regard to the adlion againft Wheelwright, 
 the other party demanded that he fhould at once go on with 
 the election. In a warm debate upon the fubjedl, Wilfon 
 mounted a tree, and delivered to the furrounding crowd 
 “ the firft flump fpeech ” uttered in America. The majority 
 voted to pafs over the petition in behalf of Wheelwright 
 unread ; Winthrop was chofen governor, and Vane and his 
 friends were relegated to private flations. An order was 
 even paffed by the dominant party, which could not have 
 failed, as it was clearly intended, to touch Vane to the quick, 
 that “ no man fhould ever after be made governor, before 
 he had been one whole year in the country, at leafl.” 31 It 
 is not ftrange that the excitement ran high on that day, for 
 fo ffiarp a contefl had never before been witneffed in any 
 political election in New England. 32 
 
 Further adlion in the cafe of Wheelwright was again 
 deferred until the next feffion of the General Court in 
 Auguft; and he was informed that, if in the mean time he 
 would retradl his obnoxious opinions, he might expedl favor, 
 but not otherwife. Wheelwright replied boldly that, if he 
 were guilty of fedition, he ought to be put to death ; and 
 that if the Court intended to pafs fentence upon him, he 
 fhould appeal to the king, “ for he could retradl nothing.” 
 
 The 
 
 31 I Hutchinfon’s Hilt. Mafs. (3d 
 Am. ed.) 65 ; Hubbard’s New Eng¬ 
 land, in 5 Mafs. Hift. Soc. Collections, 
 2d feries, 235. 
 
 32 Winthrop fays there was “ danger 
 of tumult; ” there were “ fierce fpeech- 
 es,” and “fome laid hands on others.” 
 — 1 Sav. Wint. *220. Thefe expref- 
 
 fions 
 
2 4 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 The excitement on the fubjebt was kept alive in the inter¬ 
 val by the iffue of a public vindication of the Court in their 
 adlion againft Wheelwright, which, as a matter of courfe, 
 called forth a “ fmall traCtate ” by the latter m defence of his 
 doCtrines. A voluminous paper controverfy then enfued, to 
 which various writers contributed . 33 Wheelwright ftill kept 
 his pulpit at Mount Wollafton; and it has been deemed 
 worthy of mention that, on the occafion of a Fail held in 
 May, his friends, Vane and Coddington, went out from Bof- 
 ton, and paffed the day with him there. 
 
 On the following twelfth of July, a brother of Mrs. Hutch- 
 infon, and fome others of Wheelwright’s friends, arrived in 
 Bofton from England . 34 Among the meafures defigned for 
 the extirpation of Antinomianifm from the Bay, a law had 
 recently been paffed forbidding new-comers to live in the 
 colony for a longer time than three weeks without the 
 written permiffion of one member of the council, or of two 
 
 other 
 
 fions have been cited as evidence that 
 there was adtual danger to be appre¬ 
 hended that the Antinomians might 
 attempt to overturn the government by 
 violence. Surely no contefted parlia¬ 
 mentary eledtion in England ever pafl'ed 
 off with fo much forbearance and re- 
 fpedt for the public peace. Winthrop, 
 who never failed to record the fmalleft 
 ordinary cafualties, and would be fure 
 to make the molt of this occafion, does 
 not intimate that fo much as a black 
 eye was given among the whole body 
 affembled. But, if violence had been 
 attempted, is it not queftionable 
 whether a large fhare of the refponfi- 
 bility for it would not juftly fall upon 
 
 Wilfon, for his vehement, fecular har¬ 
 angue ? 
 
 33 None of thefe pieces were printed 
 at the time, for as yet there was no 
 prefs on the continent north of Mexico. 
 They were paffed around in manufcript, 
 according to the cuftom of the time. 
 The Apology for the General Court 
 afterwards appeared in the Short Story, 
 and it is probable that Wheelwright’s 
 tradfate conftituted the foundation of 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 34 It is not known who thefe were, 
 but it is not unlikely that fome of them 
 were Wheelwright’s former parifhioners 
 and neighbors, who were found with 
 him the next year at Exeter. 
 
25 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 other magistrates . 35 Wheelwright’s friends obtained leave 
 from Governor Winthrop to remain four months, but no 
 longer. 
 
 In Auguft, matters were not ripe for final adtion againfl 
 Wheelwright, and he was enjoined to appear further at the 
 next feffion of the Legiflature in November. 
 
 Two days afterward, Vane fet fail for England. He 
 would have been more than human if he had not felt hurt 
 and indignant at the treatment he had undergone at the 
 hands of fome of his opponents in New England. But he 
 fhowed his magnanimity by forgetting it, and in after years 
 by rendering valuable fervice to the people who had dis¬ 
 paraged him. His departure deprived the Bofton party of 
 its head; and thofe who wielded the. power of the colony 
 felt that they could now deal with the recufants at their 
 pleafure. In the belief that it was a favorable time to bring 
 them into conformity, the clergy labored anew with the 
 “ opinionifts.” A private difficulty between Cotton and 
 Wheelwright, on the one part, and Wilfon on the other, 
 
 was 
 
 35 This enactment caufed much dif- 
 content. It was fo repugnant to Cot¬ 
 ton that he meditated quitting Malka- 
 chufetts on account of it. Governor 
 Winthrop found it neceffary to apolo¬ 
 gize for it by an elaborate written De¬ 
 fence, to which Vane replied in a Brief 
 Anfwer, declaring the law to be hoftile 
 to the principles of civil and religious 
 liberty, and making out fo ftrong a cafe 
 that Winthrop felt called on to put 
 forth an extended Reply. Here the 
 difcuffion was terminated by Vane’s 
 departure from the country. The three 
 
 produ6tions are given at large in Hutch- 
 infon’s Collection, 67-100. It is a cu¬ 
 rious circumftance, pointed out by 
 George H. Moore, LL.D., in 13 His¬ 
 torical Magazine, 29, that Groom, in 
 his Glafs for the People of N. E., has 
 copied a portion of the Brief Anfwer as 
 Wheelwright’s teftimony againft the 
 law. We are not inclined, however, on 
 that evidence, or from the ftyle of the 
 paper itfelf, to attribute the authorfhip to 
 Wheelwright, but believe that Hutch- 
 infon is right in afcribing it to Vane. 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 was thus reconciled ; but the general religious differences 
 had become fo widened by controverfy and perfecution that 
 it was now too late to bridge them over. 
 
 A general affembly of the elders of all the churches was 
 now refolved upon, — a meafure which had been feveral 
 months in contemplation. 30 “It was appointed,” fays Weld, 
 “ in great part for the fatisfadiion of the people.” 37 It was 
 hardly expected, perhaps, that its decrees would bring 
 all the heterodox into line again; but it would certainly 
 ftrengthen the hands of the civil authorities in adopting a 
 ftringent course with the intractable. This was the firft 
 Synod convened in New England, and its feffion began at 
 Newtown on the thirtieth of Auguffc, 1637. It was com- 
 pofed of about twentyAive minifters, being “ all the teaching 
 elders .through the country,” and fome juft arrived from 
 England and not yet fettled here, together with many lay¬ 
 men. The magiftrates were alfo prefent, and the doors 
 were open to all. For twenty-four days this ecclefiaftical 
 council continued in feffion ; in the forenoons they framed 
 their arguments, and in the afternoons produced them in 
 public. One week they gave to the confutation of eighty- 
 two “ erroneous opinions,” which they alleged to have been 
 brought into New England, and “ fpread underhand there.” 
 Next they proceeded to difcufs and condemn nine “ unfa- 
 voury speeches,” which they affumed to be of Antinomian 
 origin. 
 
 Wheelwright attended the meetings of the Synod; but we 
 have no means of knowing exactly what part he took in 
 
 the 
 
 30 Cotton’s Way, 40. 
 
 37 Preface to Short Story. 
 
27 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 the proceedings. 38 There were five points, however, in 
 which he and Cotton difagreed with the reft of their clerical 
 brethren; 39 and apparently the erroneous opinions and un- 
 favoury fpeeches, except fo far as they might include thofe 
 points, had no application to him. The Synod was not un¬ 
 animous or ftriCdy harmonious ; 40 and, if any believed that 
 its edidfs would have much effeCt upon thofe againft whom 
 they were fulminated, the refult proved otherwife. Cotton, 
 indeed, could not withftand the preffure that was put upon 
 him; but there was fcarcely another prominent member of 
 the Antinomian party who was not rather confirmed than 
 fhaken in his faith. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 The moral tufts of grafs having failed of their purpofe, 
 the rulers of the Bay now determined to refort to fterner 
 meafures. The firft thing was to make fure of the General 
 Court. The deputies were probably found to be unfuited 
 to the kind of work required of them, and the extraordinary 
 courfe of a new election was adopted. 41 On the fecond of 
 November, the Legifiature, fortified by the new members 
 feledted for the purpofe, came together, with the determi¬ 
 nation to rid the colony of the fedlaries who would not be 
 
 dragooned 
 
 88 The debates and proceedings of 
 the Synod were taken down in Ihort- 
 hand, and afterwards written out for 
 publication by John Higginfon, who 
 was employed for the purpofe by the 
 magiftrates and minifters.— Ellis''s Life 
 of Anne Hutchinfon , 261. The manu- 
 fcript was never printed, but was ex¬ 
 tant in 1743, the date of the publication 
 of Dr. Charles Chauncey’s Seafonable 
 Thoughts on the State of Religion in 
 New England ; but it is not known to 
 be now in exiftence. — See 13 Hiflori- 
 cal Magazine, 26. 
 
 30 1 Savage’s Winthrop, *239. 
 
 40 13 Hiliorical Magazine, 27 ; 1 
 
 Savage’s Winthrop, *238. 
 
 41 It appears that the General Court 
 adjourned during the feffion of the Synod 
 and met again on the twenty-fixth of 
 September. It was then dijfolved, , and 
 a new one ordered to be fummoned. — 
 1 Mafs. Colonial Records , in loco. 
 This fad! is mentioned in emphatic 
 terms in 1 Backus’s Hiltory of New 
 England, 84. 
 
28 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 dragooned into the abandonment of their convictions. They 
 began with Wheelwrights friends in their own affembly. 
 William Afpinwall, a deputy from Bofton, who drew the 
 petition in favor of Wheelwright, which had been prefented 
 on the ninth of the preceding March, was afked if he ftill 
 adhered to its fentiments, and replied that he did. A vote 
 for his expulfion was immediately paffed. Upon that, John 
 Coggefhall, one of his colleagues, rofe in his place, and . 
 declared that, though he did not fign that petition, yet he 
 approved of it; and, as they had oufted Afpinwall, they 
 “ had belt make one work of all.” The Court took him at 
 his word, and fent him off with the other. Not content 
 with this, they rejected a deputy eleCted in place of one of 
 the extruded members, becaufe he was a figner of the peti¬ 
 tion. The ftanch Coddington rode out the ftorm, though he 
 ineffectually made a motion to repeal the aCt of cenfure 
 againft Wheelwright. 
 
 The Court then cited Wheelwright to appear forthwith. 
 Upon his prefenting himfelf, they inquired if he was ready 
 to confefs his offences. He replied that he was not guilty; 
 that he had preached nothing but the truth of Chriffc, and 
 he was not refponfible for the application which they chofe 
 to make of it. After haranguing him at fome length, re¬ 
 ceiving no other reply, the Court paffed fentence upon him 
 as follows : “ Mr. John Wheelwright being formerly con¬ 
 victed of contempt and fedition, and now iuftifiing himfelfe 
 and his former praCtife, being to the difturbance of the civill 
 peace, hee is by the Court disfranchized and banifhed.” 
 
 From this fentence Wheelwright claimed an appeal to 
 the king. The Court refufed to entertain the motion, upon 
 
 the 
 
2 9 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 the ground that their charter gave them final jurifdiClion. 
 He was then afked if he would give fecurity for his peace¬ 
 able departure from the colony. This he declined to do, 
 and the Court ordered him into the cuftody of the marfhal. 
 
 A night’s reflection convinced the prifoner of the ufeleff- 
 nefs of contending with the power of the Court, and the 
 next morning he made no objection to the paffmg of fen- 
 tence upon him. The order for his disfranchifement and 
 banifhment was allowed to ftand, and he was permitted to 
 go at large upon his promife that, if he did not leave the 
 jurifdiCtion within a fortnight, he would furrender himfelf to 
 Captain Ifrael Stoughton, at his houfe, “ to be kept till hee 
 be difpofed of; ” while one of his parifhioners, Atherton 
 Hough, undertook to fatisfy any charge that Stoughton or 
 the Court fhould be at. Another attempt was made to 
 filence Wheelwright by interpofing a ftipulation that he 
 fhould not preach during the fourteen days of his flay; but, 
 as he flatly refufed to affent to the condition, it was judged 
 not prudent to infill upon it. 
 
 The “ arch-herefiarch ” being difpofed of, the authorities 
 next turned their attention to his advocates and followers. 
 Some they disfranchifed ; others they banifhed from the 
 jurifdiCtion, or fined ; and .a great number they difarmed, 
 thus inflicting a peculiar indignity upon them, befides 
 depriving them of the means of defence, at that time of 
 prime neceffity. The upfhot was that no fmall portion 
 of the men thus harfhly treated fhook the duft of Maffachu- 
 fetts from their feet, and went their way into other parts of 
 the country. 
 
 Thus terminated thefe extraordinary proceedings againfl 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
3° 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 Wheelwright. Attempts have been made to juftify them 
 on “ the tyrant’s plea ” of neceffity; but it is difficult to fee 
 in the annals of the times, though written by Wheelwright’s 
 moft adlive and ftrenuous oppofers, any good grounds of 
 apprehenfion for the fafety of fociety or the ftate, growing 
 out of his teachings or condudt. And it is a fignificant fadt 
 that no apologift for his profecution, from that day to this, 
 has been able to fpeak of it in language of unqualified 
 approval. 
 
 Fortunately for Wheelwright, though excluded from Maf- 
 fachufetts, he was at no lofs for a place of refuge. The 
 Puritans of Rhode Ifland urged and expedted him to go and 
 fettle amongft them as their minifler. 42 But, though a “ far 
 richer foyle and richer company ” awaited him there, he did 
 not think fit to comply with their invitation. His eyes were 
 turned in the oppofite diredtion, toward the virgin forefts of 
 New Hampfhire. 
 
 Pafcataqua was then the general defignation applied by 
 people refiding elfewhere to the region bordering on the 
 river of that name 43 and its chief tributaries, of which 
 the Squamfcot is one. Wheelwright no doubt quitted 
 Maffachufetts within the time limited in his fentence of 
 banifhment, and proceeded forthwith to that part of New 
 Hampfhire. It is fupposed that he went from Bofton coaft- 
 wife in a veffel. of John Clark, afterward of Rhode Ifland, 
 one of his fympathizers, who made a voyage of infpedtion of 
 the country lying to the northward, at that time. 44 From 
 
 the 
 
 42 Callender’s Rhode Ifland (4 R. I. 43 Also formerly called Pafcataquack, 
 Hift. Soc. Collections), 116; 1 Felt’s now known as Pifcataqua. 
 
 Eccles. Hift. 557. 44 1 Backus’s Hift. New England, 88, 
 
 89. 
 
3i 
 
 . Wheelwright. 
 
 the mention made by Wheelwright of the difficulties of the 
 way, 45 it feems that he probably accomplifhed fome part of 
 the journey by land, — perhaps from Strawberry-bank, now 
 Portfmouth, — to his deflination in the interior. It was the 
 beginning of a long and rigorous winter, and the fnow lay, 
 from the fourth of November till the fifth of the fucceeding: 
 March, a yard deep beyond the Merrimac; and “ the more 
 north the deeper,” according to Winthrop. It was, in truth, 
 a dreary introduction of the exile to his new abode. 
 
 There is no reafon to fuppofe that he had any hefitation 
 whither he fhould direct his courfe ; and it is probable that 
 he proceeded, as foon as the feafon permitted, to the falls of 
 the Squamfcot, the fite of the prefent town of Exeter. Here 
 a quiet, inland ffcream united its waters with the tides from 
 the fea, over rocky rapids, where the Indians captured the 
 active falmon, and which offered to the Englifh a motive 
 power invaluable to their propofed fettlement. Here alfo 
 was lumber in abundance, with a tolerable proportion of 
 grafs-bearing marfhes and natural meadows. Thefe attrac¬ 
 tions were fufficient, according to tradition, to draw to the 
 fpot two or three adventurous pioneers, before the arrival of 
 Wheelwright’s party; and the general belief of local anti¬ 
 quaries fupports the tale. To this day depreffions in the 
 foil on the eaft fide of the river, below the falls, are pointed 
 out as the fites of the habitations, long fallen to decay, of 
 the earlieft fettlers of Exeter. 
 
 With thefe hardy frontierfmen, or at Edward Hilton’s 
 plantation of Squamfcot, a few miles down the river, Wheel¬ 
 wright 
 
 45 Mercurius Americanus, *24, where, contraction, “ Pafcal,” is ufed for “ Paf- 
 as well as in the Short Story, 43, the cataqua.” 
 
32 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 wright may have paffed the inclement winter. Beyond 
 doubt he was making vigorous preparations for planting 
 his fettlement at the falls in the early fpring; for, by the 
 third of April, 1638, he had bargained for the right of the 
 local Indian fagamore to an extenfive tradl of land, embrac¬ 
 ing Exeter and the furrounding country; and on that day 
 he took two conveyances of the fame, of the following 
 tenor: 46 — 
 
 Know all men by thefe prefents that I Wehanownowit Sagamore of 
 pifkatoquake for good confiderations me therevnto moiling & for certen 
 comodys which I haue received haue graunted & fould vnto John Whele- 
 wright of pifcatoquake, Samuel Hutchinfon & Auguftine Stor of Bofton 
 Edward Calcord & Darby Field of pifcatoquake & John Compton of 
 Roxbury and Nicholas Needome of Mount Wallifton, all the right title & 
 intereft in all fuch lands, woods, meadows, riuers, brookes, fprings as of 
 right belong vnto me from Meriinack riuer to the patents of pifcatoquake, 
 bounded w th the South Eaft fide of pifcatoquake patents & fo to goe into 
 the Country north-Weft thirty miles as far as oyfter riuer to haue & to hold 
 the fame to them & their heires for ever, onely the ground w h is broken 
 up excepted. & that it fhall be lawfull for the faid Sagamore to hunt & 
 fhh & foul in the faid limits. In Witnefs whereof I haue hereunto fet my 
 hand the 3 d day of April, 1638. 
 
 Signed & poffeffion giuen Thefe being prefent 
 
 James Wall 
 
 f man J ( man I 
 
 James -J holding >his m r ke. Wehanownowit < holding >-hism r ke. 
 
 ( tomahawk ) ( hatchet. ) 
 
 his W C m r ke. 
 
 \ 
 
 William Cole 
 
 his m m r ke. 
 
 Lawrence Cowpland. 
 
 Know 
 
 46 Excellent fac-fimiles of thefe docu- terns of the Indians, which in the text 
 ments produced by the heliotype pro- are reprefented by brief verbal de- 
 cefs, accompany the prefent volume, fcriptions. 
 
 The fac-fimiles (how the marks or to- 
 
33 
 
 Know all men by thefe p r fents y* I Wehanownowitt Sagamore of Puf- 
 chataquake for a certajne fome of money to mee in hand payd & other 
 nf'chandable coniodities wch I haue reed as likewife for other good caufes 
 & confiderations mee y r unto fpetially mouing, haue granted barganed 
 alienated & sould vnto John Wheelewright of Pifchataqua & Auguftine 
 Storr of Boftone all thofe Lands woods Medowes Marfhes rivers brookes 
 fprings wth all the app r tenances emoluments gfitts comoditys there unto 
 belonging lijng & fituate within three miles on the Northerne fide of y e 
 river Meremake extending thirty miles along by the river from the fea 
 fide, & from the fayd river fide to Pifchataqua Patents thirty Miles vp into 
 the countrey North Weft, & foe from the ffalls of Pifchataqua to Oyfter 
 river thirty Miles fquare ev r y way, to haue & to hould the fame to them & 
 y r heyres for euer, only the ground wch is broaken vp is excepted & it 
 ftiall bee lawfull for y e fayd Sagamore to hunt fifti & foule in the fayd 
 lymitts. In witnefle w r of I haue hereunto fett my hand & feale the third 
 day of Aprill 1638 
 
 Signed fealed & 
 deliv r ed & poffeffton given 
 In the p r fence of 
 
 ( man ) Aspamabough 
 
 James-] holding >-hism r ke ( bow ) 
 
 ( hatchet. ) 
 
 Edward Calcord 
 Nicholas Needham 
 William Furbar 
 
 and 
 
 arrow. 
 
 his m r ke. 
 
 
 Wehanownowit 
 
 PUMMADOCKYON 
 
 the Sagamores Son 
 
 man 1 
 
 holding > his m r ke. 
 tomahawk. ) 
 
 man holding } 
 bow and >• his m*ke. 
 arrow. ) 
 
 Upon the latter inftrument was indorfed, a year after¬ 
 wards, the grant of Watohantowet of his right to the fame 
 and fome additional lands, in thefe words : — 
 
 5 
 
 Know 
 
34 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 Know all men by thefe p r fents that I Watohantowet doe fully confent 
 to the grant within written & do yeild up all my right in the faid pur- 
 chafed lands to the ptys w th in written In witneffe whereof I haue here- 
 vnto fet my hand the tenth day of April 1639. 
 
 I doe likewife grant vnto the for goode confkleration all the meadows & 
 grounds extending for the fpace of one englifh mile on the Eaft fide of 
 Oyfter river. April 10. 1639. 
 
 Thefe being p r fent 
 
 Jo: Underhill 
 his q m r ke 
 Darby Field. 
 
 f an 
 
 47 Watohantowet -< armlefs 
 
 ( man 
 
 his m r ke. 
 
 It was a matter of courfe that Wheelwright, before leaving 
 Bofton for the purpofe of eftablifhing himfelf in the almoft 
 untrodden wildernefs beyond the Merrimac, fhould have had 
 an underftanding that fuch of his friends as were willing to 
 fhare his fortunes would follow him at the earlieft prac¬ 
 ticable moment. Accordingly, we find included as grantees 
 in the conveyances from the Indians his two brothers-in-law, 
 Samuel Hutchinfon and Auguftine Storre, and John Comp¬ 
 ton and Nicholas Needham, one or both his late parifhion- 
 ers, all of whom, probably, had a part in the formation of 
 the new colony. And already, before the opening of the 
 fpring, he had gathered the nucleus of a plantation, no lefs 
 than fix' Englifhmen being on the fpot to attefl his purchafe 
 
 from 
 
 47 The name Watohantowet was un¬ 
 accountably mifread “ Watchanowet ” 
 by Farmer, and is fo given in 1 New 
 Hampfhire Hift. Soc. Collections, 147. 
 The name of Pummadockyon, on the 
 face of the fame inftrument, was in like 
 manner changed into “ Tummadock- 
 yon and the two perfons have thus 
 gone mifnamed into hiftory. There 
 
 were other miftakes made in tranfcrib- 
 ing the deeds, one of which is of con- 
 fequence. In the firft deed, the latter 
 part of the defcription heretofore 
 printed, “fo to goe into the Countrey 
 north-Weft thirty miles as far as the 
 eajle linef fhould read, “ as far as 
 oyfter riuer .” 
 
35 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 from the natives, — James Wall, William Cole, Lawrence 
 Copeland, Edward Colcord, Nicholas Needham, and Wil¬ 
 liam Furber, — moft if not all of whom became adfual 
 fettlers. 
 
 The able-bodied, energetic, felf-reliant Wheelwright was 
 admirably fitted to lead the enterprife of planting a fettle- 
 ment in the wildernefs. And little time elapfed before he 
 was furrounded by a company of followers large enough to 
 infure the fuccefs of his projedl, and embracing men abun¬ 
 dantly qualified to fecond him in his endeavors. They laid 
 the foundations of their future home in orderly and perma¬ 
 nent fafhion. The lands purchafed from the native proprie¬ 
 tors were from the outfet held by the grantees in truft for 
 the whole body of the fettlers and as their property. At 
 firffc a portion only of the foil was allotted to them, accord¬ 
 ing to fome fixed proportion, and other parts were after¬ 
 wards, from time to time, difpofed of by the town to fup- 
 ply the needs of new-comers. The names of more than 
 thirty men appear in the firfb affignment of (hares of land. 
 In the divifion of the uplands, Wheelwright received “ 80 
 acers, one end butting upon the river Eaftward, & the other 
 end running into the majne, fix fcore poole in Length.” 
 And in the apportionment of marfh-land, there was allotted 
 “ to o r paftor 8 acers 3 quarters bee it more or leffe.” 48 
 
 Sufficient places of fhelter were among the firffc needs of 
 the immigrants, and muff foon have been provided, in fome 
 rude fafhion, at leaft, for the accommodation of the gentler 
 
 fex. 
 
 Exeter Records, from which moft of the fadts concerning the early hiftory 
 of the place have been derived. 
 
Memoir of 
 
 fex. Wheelwright’s wife, with his children, and her mother, 
 Mrs. Sufanna Hutchinfon, then a widow, left Maffachufetts 
 in feafon to reach the embryo village on the Squamfcot in 
 the early fpring of 1638; 49 and little doubt can be enter¬ 
 tained that they were attended or foon followed by the 
 families of the other hufbands and fathers, who had taken 
 up their abode there. 
 
 Among a body of men, of whom moft were earned; mem¬ 
 bers of the Puritan church, and not a few had been perfe¬ 
 cted for their religious fentiments, headed by a minister of 
 remarkable learning, power, and piety, it was to be expedled 
 that no delay would be tolerated in making ready for Suit¬ 
 able and regular gofpel worfhip. Accordingly, we find that 
 a church was gathered the firft feafon. 50 A place of worfhip 
 was built, whofe fite was on the northern fkirt of the prefent 
 village of Exeter, and was begirt, in the manner of that day, 
 with a yard, ufed as a place of fepulture. Its location is 
 fixed, as well by human bones which have fince, from time 
 to time, been exhumed there, as by the name of “ Meeting- 
 
 houfe 
 
 40 1 Savage’s Winthrop, *259. 
 
 50 Ibid. *281. In December, 1638, 
 Wheelwright and eight others applied 
 to the Bolton church for dlfmiffion 
 therefrom to the church at Exeter, 
 which was granted the fixth of the 
 following January. The records of the 
 firft church in Bolton contain this en¬ 
 try : “6 of nth moneth, 1638. This 
 day difmiffions granted to o r Brethren 
 M r John Wheele wright, Richard Mor- 
 rys, Richard Bulgar, Philemon Por- 
 mort, Ifaac GrolTe, Chriltopher Marfhall, 
 George Baytes, Thomas Wardall & 
 Willyam Wardall, vnto y e Church of 
 Chrilt at y e ffalls of Pafchataqua, if 
 
 they be rightly gathered & ordered.” 
 And that no queltion could be raifed 
 refpedting the “rightful gathering and 
 ordering” of that church would feem 
 to be fufficiently proved by the follow¬ 
 ing unconditional adtion of the Bolton 
 church, lefs than two months later: 
 “3 of the I st mo. 1639. This day 
 granted to thefe filter vnto y e fore- 
 named church at y e ffalls now called 
 Exeter; Sufanna Hutchinfon,widdowe, 
 Mary, y e wife of M r Wheelwright, 
 Lenora y wife of Richard Morrys, 
 Henry Elkin, our brother, and to Mary 
 his wife o r filtar.” 
 
IFheelwright. 3 7 
 
 houfe Hill,” that for a long time clung to a flight elevation 
 adjacent. 
 
 If the great objedl of the authorities of Maffachufetts in 
 ridding themfelves of Wheelwright and his followers had 
 been, as fome writers now contend, to protect their colony 
 from the danger of civil commotion, it would furely feem 
 that their purpofe was accomplifhed when thofe dreaded 
 intruders had withdrawn from the jurifdidtion, and eflab- 
 liflied themfelves elfewhere. But there was a feeling againfl: 
 them which was not fated by their expulflon, but grudged 
 them a friendly reception in their diflant retreat. In Sep¬ 
 tember, 1638, the General Court of Maffachufetts diredfed 
 the governor to write to the people of Pafcataqua, taxing 
 them with unneighborly conduct in aiding Wheelwright to 
 begin a plantation there, when he had been caffc out from 
 the Bay; and the governor prepared and forwarded a letter 
 of the deflred import. 51 
 
 Such a communication was certain to reach the ears of 
 the ftruggling company at Exeter, and muft naturally have 
 had the effedl of eflranging them farther than ever from the 
 government of Maffachufetts. The jealous feeling thus en¬ 
 gendered was manifefted in repeated inflances afterward. 
 It is likely that it gave the tone to the notification, which, in 
 the early part of 1639, Wheelwright forwarded to the au¬ 
 thorities of the Bay, that the fettlers of Exeter had bought 
 of an Indian (Wehanownowit) a tradl of land, which included 
 Winicowet, now Hampton, and that the purchafers intended 
 to lot it out into farms, unlefs Maffachufetts could fhow a 
 better title. 52 
 
 This 
 
 51 1 Savage’s Winthrop, *291, *292. 52 Ibid. *290. 
 
38 ■ Memoir of 
 
 This was a home-thruft at their fouthern neighbors, who 
 had even then begun to nourifh the ambition for enlarging 
 their territory, which involved them afterwards in protradted 
 difficulty and litigation, and who had already fet up a claim 
 to Winicowet itfelf. They, therefore, in their reply to 
 Wheelwright, complained of the interference with lands, 
 which they alleged came within their charter, or, at leaft, 
 had been taken poffeffion of by them when vacant two years 
 before. They alfo laid down the law in regard to the Indi¬ 
 ans’ title to the foil, much as it has always been accepted 
 fince ; that .they had “ only a natural right to fo much land 
 as they had or could improve, fo as the reft of the country 
 lay open'to any that could or would improve it.” 
 
 The Exeter proprietors, in reply, ftill claimed the lands by 
 virtue of their purchafe from the natives. But the Maffa- 
 chufetts rulers had, in the mean time, afcertained by adtual 
 exploration that, by a fomewhat artificial conftrudtion of the 
 language of their charter, it might be held to include the 
 whole of the Pafcataqua country, including not only Wini¬ 
 cowet, but Exeter alfo. So they rejoined that, though they 
 ftill held that their prior poffeffion was good againft the 
 Indian title, yet they were content to reft their claims upon 
 their patent, 53 underftanding that the people of Exeter made 
 no pretenfions to any lands which fell therein. The little 
 controverfy appears to have been terminated by the occupa¬ 
 tion of Winicowet, later in the fame feafon, by a company 
 under the authority of Maffachufetts. 
 
 The feeble fettlements of New Hampfhire now languifhed 
 for want of a general government. John Mafon, the pat¬ 
 entee 
 
 63 1 Savage’s Winthrop, *303. 
 
39 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 entee, had died in 1635, and no fteps had been taken by his 
 heirs towards the organization, under a Tingle head, of the 
 detached plantations on the Pafcataqua and its branches. 
 It is not ftrange, therefore, that the people of the older 
 towns, tired of the experimental felf-rule, which had failed to 
 give them confideration abroad or quiet at home, were anx¬ 
 ious to take refuge under the ftrong arm of the adjacent 
 colony. The inhabitants of Dover and its vicinity, in 1639, 
 made application to be received under the jurifdidtion of 
 Maffachufetts, and fatisfadlory terms of union were agreed 
 upon ; but for Tome caufe the junction was not effected till 
 two or three years later. The people of Exeter made alfo 
 a propofal of like character; but not relifhing the terms of¬ 
 fered, and poffibly having fome mifgivings about the wifdom 
 of putting themfelves in the power of Maffachufetts, they 
 “ repented themfelves,” and withdrew their application. 54 
 
 Neceffity fometimes makes laws, if fhe oftener ignores 
 them. As the population of Exeter increafed in numbers, 
 and came to include thofe who fpecially needed the reftraints 
 of rule, fome form of civil conflitution became indifpenfable. 
 A combination, as it was called, for felf-government was 
 drawn up by Wheelwright, and figned by himfelf and the 
 members of the church and other inhabitants, in the follow¬ 
 ing terms: — 
 
 Whereas it hath pleated the lord to moue the heart of our Dread Sover- 
 aigne Charles, by the grace of god king of England, Scotland, France & 
 Ireland, to grant licence & liberty to fundry of his fubjedts to plant them 
 felves in the Wefterne partes of America: Wee his loyall fubjedts, brethren 
 of the church of Exceter, fituate & lying vpon the riuer of Pifcataquacke, 
 w th other inhabitants there, confidering w th our felves the holy will of god 
 
 and 
 
 54 
 
 1 Savage’s Winthrop, *319. 
 
40 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 and our owne neceffity that we fhould not Hue w th out wholefome lawes & 
 ciuil govern me* amongft vs, of w h we are altogether deftitute, doe in the 
 name of chrift & in the fight of god, combine our felves together to ere< 5 t 
 & fet vp amongft vs fuch Governement as fhall be, to our belt difcerning, 
 agreeable to the will of god; prof effing our felves fubjebts to our Sover- 
 aigne Lord King Charles, according to the liberty's of our Englifh Colony 
 of the Maffachufets, & binding our felves folemnely by the grace & helpe 
 of chrift & in his name & feare, to fubmit our felves to fuch godly & chrif- 
 tian laws as are eftablifhed in the Realme of England, to our beft knowl¬ 
 edge, & to all other fuch lawes w h fhall vpon good grounds be made & 
 inabted amongft vs according to god, y* we may liue quietly & peaceablely 
 together in all godlynefs and honefty: 
 
 Mon: 5 th , d. 4 th , 1639. 
 
 John Whelewright, 
 Augustine Storre, 
 
 Thomas Wight, 
 
 William Wantworth, 
 
 Henry Elkins, 
 
 his mark 
 
 George X Walton, 
 Samuell Walker, 
 
 Thomas Pettit, 
 
 Rallf Hall, 
 
 his mark 
 
 Robert X Soward, 
 Richard Bullgar, 
 Christopher Lawson, 
 
 his mark 
 
 George X Barlow, 
 Richard Moris, 
 
 Nicholas Needham, 
 
 Thomas Willson, 
 
 his mark 
 
 George X Ruobone, 
 Henry Roby, 
 
 WlLLIA WENBOURNE, 
 
 5a This Combination, after being ex¬ 
 ecuted, was ‘‘at the inftant requeft of 
 
 his mark 
 
 Thomas X Crawley, 
 
 Chr. Helme, 
 
 his mark 
 
 Darby X Ffeild, 
 
 his mark 
 
 Robert X Read, 
 
 Edward Rishworth, 
 
 his mark 
 
 Ffrancis X Mathews, 
 
 his mark 
 
 William X Coole, 
 
 his mark 
 
 James X Walles, 
 
 Thomas Levitt, 
 
 Edmond Littlefeeld, 
 
 his mark 
 
 John X Crame, 
 
 his mark 
 
 GODFRYE X DEAREBORNE, 
 
 Philemon Pormortt, 
 
 Thomas Wardell, 
 
 his mark 
 
 Willia X Wardell, 
 
 his mark 
 
 Robert X Smith . 55 
 
 In 
 
 fome of the brethren,” fuperfeded by 
 another agreement, for the fame pur- 
 
41 
 
 l 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 In conformity with this declaration, bearing date exactly 
 one hundred and thirty-feven years before the aufpicious 
 Fourth of July on which our National Independence was 
 proclaimed, the little colony of Exeter affumed a republican 
 form of government, made choice of its own rulers, and 
 enabled a code of laws characterized by good fenfe, fore- 
 caft, and equity, as may be feen from a brief fynopfis of fome 
 of them. 
 
 All the inhabitants, prefent or abfent, having lots in the 
 town, were made liable to contribute towards defraying the 
 public charges, according to their proportions of land, cattle, 
 or other privileges. 
 
 Highways were ordered to be laid out, “ three poole in 
 width; ” the lands were required to be fenced, and compen- 
 fation was directed to be made for all damage done by cattle 
 or fwine. 
 
 No one was allowed to fet fire to the woods, fo as to defiroy 
 the feed of the cattle, or occafion other mifchief; every man 
 muft fell fuch trees in his lot as were offenfive to his neigh¬ 
 bor ; no one was permitted to hoard corn in a time of 
 fcarcity. 
 
 All creeks were to be free for fifhing; the miller’s toll was 
 fpecifically reftrided; no inhabitant was allowed to fell to 
 the Indians powder, fiiot, warlike weapons, fack, or other 
 ftrong waters, or to demand of them for corn a greater price 
 
 than 
 
 pofe, but fet forth in different terms, as here given, was, on the fecond of 
 Afterwards the latter agreement was April, 1640, re-eftablifhed and con- 
 thought to contain fome expreffions firmed. — See 1 New Hampjhire Pro- 
 capable of being underftood in a fenfe vincial Papers , 13T. A fac-fimile of 
 fomewhat derogatory to the allegiance the inftrument is given in the Went- 
 due to the king, and was in its turn worth Genealogy, 
 revoked, and the original Combination, 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 than four fhillings the bufhel; and one difcreet perfon was 
 to have licenfe to fell wine and ftrong waters to the Englifh 
 by retail. 
 
 Suitable tribunals were establifhed to carry thefe whole- 
 fome regulations into effedf, and trial by jury was provided for. 
 
 The hand of Wheelwright can hardly be miftaken in thefe 
 judicious provifions for the future welfare of his plantation, 
 efpecially in thofe defigned to fecure the aborigines from 
 impofition and intemperance. He had able coadjutors, too, 
 whofe practical knowledge and experience undoubtedly con¬ 
 tributed in no fmall degree to the fuccefs of this primary 
 legiflation. 56 
 
 Under this voluntary fyftem of government, the fettle- 
 ment of Exeter flourifhed and took permanent root. Its 
 numbers increafed ; the land was fubdued to the plough ; 
 grift-mills were fet in motion by the waters of the falls ; 
 and good order appears to have prevailed in a degree un- 
 ufual in a frontier hamlet. Wheelwright purfued the even 
 tenor of his ways, as paftor of the little church, making his 
 prefence felt, we cannot doubt, in every matter of intereft to 
 his people, and winning each fucceffive year a greater fhare 
 of their confidence and attachment. 
 
 It is a matter of neceffity that a republic, even though it 
 confift of but a few fcore inhabitants, fhould, in procefs of 
 time, come to contain two parties. In Exeter, the divifion 
 
 appears 
 
 50 William Wentworth was one of fubfequently attorney-general of Rhode 
 them, — a man of education and ability, Itland. Philemon Pormort, matter of the 
 and in after life a preacher of the Gof- Botton Grammar School, and Edward 
 pel. He was the ancettor of.a long Rifhworth, who afterwards filled impor- 
 line of governors and men of promi- tant offices in York County, were alfo 
 nence. Richard Bulgar was another, of Wheelwright’s company. 
 
43 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 appears to have occurred on the queftion of a union with 
 Maffachufetts. That colony, having afferted a claim under 
 her patent to the whole country of the Pafcataqua, the other 
 New Hampfhire towns, as early as 1641, formally fubmitted 
 to her jurifdidlion. But the old diftruft lingered in Exeter. 
 The petition of her citizens to be received under the Bay 
 Government was delayed till 1643. And it was even then 
 couched in terms, or bafed on fome conditions, diftafteful to 
 thofe to whom it was addreffed, being the work, apparently, 
 of the early partifans of Wheelwright. The Maffachufetts 
 General Court declined to accede to the petition, “ taking it 
 ill that Exeter, which fell within their patent, fhould Capitu¬ 
 late with them.” 
 
 Another petition was immediately prepared, and offered 
 at the fame feffion of the Legidature, for the fame objedl, but 
 phrafed more acceptably. Of its twenty-two fubfcribers, 
 only three were figners of the former petition, and but four 
 members of the combination. The fecond petition was 
 granted without hefitation ; and Exeter, originally an afylum 
 for fugitives from the feverities of the Bay Government, now 
 to that government gave her voluntary allegiance. 57 
 
 It is not ftrange that Wheelwright, and the others who 
 were ftill under the ban of Maffachufetts, watched with 
 intereffc her gradual extenfion of jurifdidfion over the New 
 
 Hampfhire 
 
 57 1 N. H. Provincial Papers, 168, fecond petition, rejedted the nomina- 
 170. The firft petition is fo mutilated tions it contained, for clerk of the writs 
 that of its contents, fave the names of and commiffioners of fmall caufes. 
 fome of the figners, nothing is left. Of The perfons nominated were alfo fign- 
 the thirteen names remaining upon it, ers of the favored petition ; but, inftead 
 all but two were affixed to the Com- of them, the Court appointed men who 
 bination of 1639. It was a curious fubfcribed the firft petition and the 
 ftroke of policy that the General Court Combination alfo. 
 of Maffachufetts, while approving the 
 
44 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 Hampfhire towns. Common prudence required that they 
 fhould be feeking out a place of fecurity, to which they 
 could remove when the occafion required. They found it 
 in the uninhabited region north-eaft of the Pafcataqua. In 
 September, 1641, Samuel Hutchinfon and Nicholas Need¬ 
 ham, who were parties with Wheelwright to the Indian pur- 
 chafe of 1638, began to profpedfc that country, and, on the 
 twenty-fourth of the month, obtained from Thomas Gorges, 
 fuperintendent of the affairs of Sir Ferdinando Gorges in his 
 province of Maine, a licenfe to occupy and improve the ter¬ 
 ritory which afterwards conftituted the townfhip of Wells. 58 
 Some of the land was claimed by one Stratton and others, 
 fo that Gorges was unwilling at that time to make an abfo- 
 lute conveyance of it. 
 
 Soon afterwards, Edmund Littlefield, Edward Rifhworth, 
 and others of the old adherents of Wheelwright, removed 
 from Exeter to the new locality, and began to clear the foil 
 and adapt it to human occupation. Wheelwright himfelf 
 deemed it judicious to follow, before the authority of Maffa- 
 chufetts began to be exerted at the falls of the Squamfcot, 
 and probably eftablifhed himfelf in Wells in the fpring of 
 1643, though it may have been a few months earlier. 
 Thomas Gorges, in April of that year, conveyed to him a 
 trad! of land, containing about four hundred acres, on the 
 eafierly fide of the Ogunquit River, and, on the fourteenth 
 of the fucceeding July, made to him and others the follow¬ 
 ing grant, no doubt in fulfilment of an underftanding with 
 Hutchinfon and Needham two years before. The claim of 
 Stratton and others had in the mean time been found 
 nugatory: — Witneffeth 
 
 58 Bourne’s Hiftory of Wells and Kennebunk, 9. 
 
45 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 Witneffeth thefe prefents that I Thomas Gorges Deputy Governor of 
 the Province of Mayne according to the power given unto me from Sir 
 Ferdinando Gorges, Knight, Lord proprietor of the faid province, have 
 for divers good caufes and confiderations in and thereunto moving, given 
 and granted unto Mr. John Wheelright minifter of God’s word, Mr. Henry 
 Boads, and Mr. Edward Rifhworth of Wells, full and abfolute power to 
 alot bounds and fett forth any lott or bounds unto any man that thall 
 come to inhabit in the plantation, themfelves paying for any land they 
 hold from Sir Ferdinando Gorges five (hillings for every hundred acres 
 they make ufe of, the reft five (hillings for every hundred acres that (hall 
 be allotted unto them by the faid Mr. John Wheelright, Henry Boads and 
 Edward Rifhworth. The bounds of the plantation to begin from the 
 North Eaft fide of Ogunquitt River, to the South Weft fide of Kennebunk 
 River, and to run eight miles up into the country and in cafe differences 
 arife between the faid Mr. John Wheelright, Henry Boads and Edward 
 Rifhworth concerning the admiffion of any man into the plantation, or of 
 bounding any land, the faid difference (hall be determined by the agent 
 or agents of Sir Ferdinando Gorges to whom full power is referved of 
 admitting any one into the aforefaid limitt. Given under my hand and 
 feal at armes this 14th July, 1643. 
 
 Tho. Gorges. 
 
 This grant was formally confirmed by Richard' Vines, 
 deputy-governor, and the other members of a court held at 
 Saco, on the fourteenth of Auguft, 1644. But a {mail num¬ 
 ber of lots appear ever to have been affigned to fettlers under 
 its authority, however. 59 
 
 Wheelwright, immediately after his arrival in Wells, 
 eredfed a houfe of fufficient capacity to accommodate his 
 own family, together with his mother-in-law, Mrs. Hutchin- 
 fon, who accompanied them, and fubfequently died there. 00 
 
 Upon 
 
 59 Bourne’s Hift. Wells, &c., 10, 14. years afterward, upon the claim that it 
 
 60 Bourne’s Hift. Wells, &c., 49, 37. was built for Wheelwright by his par- 
 This may have been the houfe about ifhioners, to be ufed as a parfonage, 
 which a fuit at law was brought, five and fo, when he left it, remained their 
 
 property. 
 
4.6 Memoir of 
 
 Upon a flream near his dwelling he built a faw-mill, and 
 thus, with charadleriflic prudence and forecafl, fecured one 
 of the few fources of profit afforded by the new country. 61 
 A confiderable number of his Exeter parifhioners accom¬ 
 panied him to Wells, fo that a church was at once inflituted 
 there, of which he was, of courfe, the pallor. It deferves to 
 be mentioned to his credit, alfo, that the people whom he 
 left at Exeter entertained the kindeffc feelings toward him, 
 and were flow to relinquifli the expectation that he might 
 return to them. 62 
 
 It is not known that Wheelwright entertained the idea of 
 refuming his refidence in Exeter, though Wells could have 
 been no very attractive home to him. The mere fadl that 
 it was on the confines of civilization was, to a perfon of his 
 vigorous conftitution and experience in pioneer life, the leaft 
 of its demerits. But th£re was no kindred companionfhip 
 for him outfide the little circle of thofe who had followed 
 him thither. The few remaining inhabitants were generally 
 ignorant and uncultivated, if not adlually degraded. 63 No 
 doubt the Cambridge graduate, educated in the fociety of 
 fcholars and gentlemen, found it an unpromifmg portion of 
 his Mailers vineyard to labor in. But his views of duty 
 
 were 
 
 property. See letter of Henry Boad cerning it, as in the cafe referred to in 
 to John Winthrop, 1 Mafs/Hift. Soc. note 60. 
 
 Collections (5th feries), 358. The 62 The records of Exeter fhow, 
 Court records of York County fhow among other fads to fupport this ftate- 
 nothing of the fuit, and we have no ment, that a grant of marfh-land was 
 clew to the ifiue of it. made to Wheelwright on the feven- 
 
 61 Bourne’s Hift. Wells, &c., 49. teenth of June, 1644, upon the con- 
 judge Bourne dates that Wheelwright dition that “ he doth Com amongft us 
 had a lawfuit againft John Littlefield againe.” 
 
 in regard to the mill; but the records 03 Bourne’s Hift. Wells, &c., 235, &c. 
 of the county are equally filent con- 
 
47 
 
 were not of the pliant kind, which would be defledted by 
 fuch confiderations. There is no reafon to doubt that he 
 devoted himfelf cheerfully and loyally to his work, fo long 
 as he miniftered to the little flock about him. 
 
 He had, probably, long underflood that it would not be 
 difficult to make his peace with Maffachufetts. In Septem¬ 
 ber, 1642, while he was yet in Exeter, upon fome application 
 made in his behalf to the authorities of the Bay colony, they 
 had gracioufly replied that if “ hee himfelfe petition the O at 
 Boflon, they fhall have power to grant him fafe-condudl ” 
 into their jurifdidtion. 64 It does not appear that he made 
 any advances, however, at that time. But it is plain that 
 fome influence was at work in Maffachufetts to bring about 
 a reconciliation; for, on the tenth of May, 1643, the General 
 Court again, without any folicitation on his part, 65 granted 
 to him permifflon to viflt the colony for fourteen days, at 
 any time within the enfuing three months. 66 The banifhed 
 divine upon this repaired to the fcenes of his earlier labors 
 and trials, and “ fpake with divers of the miniflers,” who 
 were fo well fatisfied with his expofltion of his feelings and 
 views that they determined to ufe their influence to obtain 
 a reverfal of the fentence againA him. 67 There is a ftrong 
 
 probability 
 
 04 2 Maffachufetts Colonial Records, 
 3 2 - 
 
 03 It is true that Hubbard, in his 
 Hiffory of New England, 365, ftates 
 that Wheelwright “ wrote to the Gov¬ 
 ernor for leave to come into the Bay ; ” 
 but Winthrop, who could not have 
 failed to mention it had the fadt been 
 fo, fays nothing of the fort. Hubbard 
 is notorioufly inexadt, and in this in- 
 ftance contradidts himfelf; for he gives 
 
 the letter in which he fays Wheelwright 
 requefted permiffion to vifit Maffachu¬ 
 fetts, and the letter not only contains 
 nothing of the kind, but bears date 
 months after the permiffion was 
 granted. 
 
 06 2 Mafs. Colonial Records, 37. 
 
 07 Hubbard’s Hift. New England, 
 366. Hubbard here gives a fadt that 
 muff have been within his perfonal 
 knowledge. 
 
Memoir of 
 
 probability that they counfelled him in what tone to frame 
 an appeal to the Maffachufetts government for that purpofe. 
 The refult of the conference may be gathered from the fol¬ 
 lowing letter, which he addreffed to the Legiflature a few 
 days after his return to Wells : — 
 
 Right Worshipful, — Upon the long and mature confideration of 
 things, I perceive that the main difference between yourfelves and fome 
 of the reverend elders and me in point of’ juftification and the evidencing 
 thereof, is not of that nature and confequence as was then prefented to me 
 in the falfe glafs of fatan’s temptations and mine own diftempered paffions, 
 which makes me unfeignedly forry that I had fuch an hand in thofe fharp 
 and vehement contentions raifed thereabouts to the great difturbance of 
 the churches of ChrifL It is the grief of my foul that I ufed fuch vehement, 
 cenforious fpeeches in the application of my fermon, or in any other writ¬ 
 ing, whereby I reflected any difhonor upon your worfhips, the reverend 
 elders, or any of contrary judgment to myfelf. It repents me that I did 
 fo much adhere to perfons of corrupt judgment to the countenancing of 
 them in any of their errors or evil pradtices, though I intended no fuch 
 thing ; and that in the fynod I ufed fuch unfafe and obfcure expreffions, 
 falling from me as a man dazzled with the buffetings of fatan, and that I 
 did appeal from mifapprehenfion of things. I confefs that herein I have 
 done very finfully, and do humbly crave pardon of this honored date. If 
 it fhall appear to me by scripture light that in any carriage, word, writing, 
 or a< 5 tion, I have walked contrary to rule, I fhal! be ready, by the grace of 
 God, to give fatisfadtion ; thus hoping that you will pardon my boldnefs, 
 I humbly take leave of your worfhip, committing you to the good provi¬ 
 dence of the Almighty, and ever remain your worfhip’s in all fervice to be 
 commanded in the Lord. 
 
 J. Wheelwright. 
 
 Wells (7), 10 43. 
 
 The letter reached Boflon on the fourth of the fucceeding 
 October, and upon it “ the Court was very well inclined to 
 releafe the banifhment ” of its author. It was accordingly 
 
 ordered that he fhould have a fafe-conduCt to attend the 
 
 / 
 
 next 
 
49 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 ' next feffion of the Court, if he defired. This was in effedl a 
 fummons or invitation for him to plead his caufe in perfon 
 before that tribunal. Of this, Governor Winthrop gave him 
 notice by letter, which elicited the following reply : 68 — 
 
 Right Worshipful, — I have received the letter wherein you fignify 
 to me that you have imparted my letter to the honorable court, and that 
 it finds good applaufe, for which I rejoice with much thankfulnefs. I am 
 very thankful to your worfhip for the letter of fafe condudt which I for¬ 
 merly received, as likewife for the late a6t of court granting me the fame 
 liberty in cafe I defire letters to that end. I fliould very willingly, upon 
 letters received, exprefs by word of mouth, openly in court, that which I 
 did by writing, might I without offence explain my true intent and mean¬ 
 ing more fully to this effedt; that, notwithstanding my failings, for which 
 I humbly crave pardon, yet I cannot with a good confcience condemn 
 myfelf for fuch capital crimes, dangerous revelations, and grofs errors, as 
 have been charged upon me, the concurrence of which (as I take it) make 
 up the very fubftance of the caufe of all my fufferings. I do not fee but 
 in fo mixt a caufe I am bound toufe, may it be permitted, my juft defence 
 fo far as I apprehend myfelf to be innocent, as to make my ccnfeflion 
 where I am convinced of any delinquency; otherwife I fhall feemingly 
 and in appearance fall under guilt of many heinous offences, for which my 
 confcience doth acquit me. If I feem to make fuit to the honorable court 
 for relaxation to be granted by an a6t of mercy upon my foie confeffion, I 
 muft offend my confcience ; if by an a 6 i of justice upon mine apology and 
 lawful defence, I fear left I fhall offend your worfhips. I leave all things to 
 your wife and godly confideration, hoping that you will pardon my fim- 
 plieity and plainnefs, which I am forced unto by the power of an over¬ 
 ruling confcience. I reft your worfhip’s in the Lord. 
 
 Wells (i), 1-43.8® J. WHEELWRIGHT. 
 
 The condinT of Wheelwright in making this conceffion 
 to the bigoted power which had ejected him from his pulpit 
 
 and 
 
 68 2 Savage’s Winthrop, *163. Thefe Hubbard, which has been underflood 
 letters of Wheelwright are given as to have been taken from Winthrop, 
 they appear in Winthrop, though they 69 i.e., March 1, 1644. 
 differ fomewhat from the verfion of 
 
 7 
 
5 <d Memoir of 
 
 and his home, and proclaimed him an outcaft, has been the 
 fubjeCl of fome animadverfion. It has even been pro¬ 
 nounced a fawning attempt to reftore himfelf to favor, and 
 a difhonorable facrifice of his independence. But this cen- 
 fure is not borne out by the faCts. There is abfolutely no 
 ground for believing that he expeded to gain any advantage 
 of a temporal nature from being reftored to the freedom of 
 Maffachufetts. On the other hand, the candor with which 
 he admitted the faults, of which reflection had rendered him 
 fenflble, and the confcientious defire he manifefted to make 
 amends for them, are worthy of all refpeCt. 
 
 The language of his ’firft letter, which has probably led to 
 the mifconflruCtion of his motives, may have been influenced 
 by the advice of his clerical brethren, as we have feen. Its 
 extravagant tone of felf-condemnation was, however, entirely 
 in keeping with the flyle employed by devout men at that 
 period, and, indeed, long afterward. Such exuberance of 
 fpeech is to be received, at the prefent day, like Oriental 
 profefflons of hofpitality, at a heavy difcount. Wheelwright 
 himfelf, upon further conflderation, or poflibly upon fome 
 inkling from Winthrop’s letter that the General Court 
 might incline to take his effuflve advances more literally 
 than he intended, found it neceffary to define his pofition 
 anew, and wrote the fecond letter to guard againft the mif- 
 conftruftion of the firft. Graceful as it is for a penitent to 
 flyle himfelf the chiefeft of flnners, it is awkward to have 
 another indorfe the epithet . 70 
 
 In 
 
 70 Backus, in i Hiffc. N. E. 153, fays, of us but what will acknowledge in 
 fignificantly, that Wheelwright’s fecond general terms that our church is im- 
 letter would make one think of Bifhop perfect, though when we come to par- 
 Burnet’s remark, that “there are none ticulars we are always in the right.” 
 
5i 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 In the fecond letter Wheelwright refted his claim for 
 acquittal upon the ground of juftice rather than of mercy. 
 It cannot be faid that his overtures involved any defertion 
 of principle, or cringing to the difpenfers of favors. He 
 made a manly confeffion of his error, to bring about recon¬ 
 ciliation and peace, as was eminently becoming-his facred 
 calling. 
 
 Upon the receipt of Wheelwright’s fecond letter, Win- 
 throp again wrote him, that, although the fentence of banifh- 
 ment might, perhaps, be remitted without his prefence, yet 
 that was queftionable; and recommended him to appear 
 before the Court in perfon. 71 But*this Wheelwright was 
 not difpofed to do. So the matter refted until the twenty- 
 ninth of May, 1644, when the Legiflature ordered “that M r . 
 Wheelwright (upon pticular, folemne and ferious acknowl¬ 
 edging & confeffion by letter, of his evill carriages & of y e C r ts 
 iuftice upon him for them) hath his banifhnk taken of, & 
 is received in as a member of this comonwealth.” 72 
 
 If Wheelwright erred in preferring his requeft with excef- 
 five humility, it cannot be faid that the Legiflature mani- 
 fefted overmuch magnanimity in granting it. They per¬ 
 verted the honeft import of his language, and extended to 
 him their grace on grounds that he never admitted. But 
 they had the “ giant’s ftrength,” and there was nothing left 
 for him but to accept his. re-enfranchifement, cum onere . 
 
 The period of Wheelwright’s refidence at Wells was 
 
 * 
 
 marked alfo by the publication of two notable pamphlets 
 upon the fubjedt of the Antinomian Controverfy of 1637 in 
 Maffachufetts, and the fhare of the Mount Wollafton paftor 
 
 therein. 
 
 72 2 Mafs. Colonial Records, 67. 
 
 71 2 Savage’s Winthrop, *164. 
 
52 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 therein. The one was iffued in London in the early part of 
 1644, under this title, “ A Short Story of the Rife, reign and 
 ruin of the Antinomians , Familijis & Libertines that in- 
 feCted the Churches of New England ; And how they were 
 confuted by the Affembly of Minifters there : As alfo of the 
 Magiffcrates proceedings in Court againffc them. Together 
 with Gods ftrange and remarkable judgments from Heaven 
 of fome of the chief fomenters of thefe Opinions ; And the 
 lamentable death of Ms. Hutchinfonh It purported to be 
 the work of “ one that was an eye and ear witneffe of the 
 carriage of matters there,” and confifted of an introduction 
 and preface by the Rev. Thomas Weld; 73 a catalogue of 
 the erroneous opinions condemned by the Cambridge Synod 
 of 1637; an account of the proceedings of the General Court 
 againft Wheelwright and others ; and a “ Brief Apology ” 
 for the fame. It may be characterized, in general, as a very 
 bitter and partifan production, even for that day. The 
 authorfhip of the body of the work has been the fubjeCt of 
 difcuffion among antiquaries. 74 Much of it is agreed on all 
 hands to have been the work of Winthrop, and the better 
 opinion feems to be that it muft all be attributed to him. 75 
 
 Wheelwright 
 
 Hon James Savage and “ Hutchinfon ” 
 (underftood to be the nom de plume of 
 J. Wingate Thornton, Efquire), in 1 
 Hiftorical Magazine, 321, and 2 do. 22, 
 170. 
 
 73 1 Felt’s Eccles. Hift. 312, n. 534. 
 — “The Antinomian Controverfy of 
 1637,” by the Rev. John A. Vinton, in 
 the Congregational Quarterly for July, 
 1873, P- 4 ° 9 i n - (2), where the ftate- 
 ments of contemporary writers are 
 cited. From the language of Wheel¬ 
 wright in the fecond title, of Mercurius 
 Americanus, and in the work itfelf, it 
 
 73 Weld was the firft minifter of 
 Roxbury, and lived in this country 
 from 1632 to 1641, in which latter year 
 he went to England as agent for Maffa- 
 chufetts. He never returned, but re¬ 
 mained there till his death, in 1662. 
 In his preface to the Short Story, he 
 difclaimed the authorfhip of the main 
 part of the work, and his character as 
 a Chriftian minfter, efpecially in the 
 abfence of any adequate motive for 
 falfehood, leaves little room to queftion 
 the truthfulnefs of his ftatement. 
 
 74 See the communications of the 
 
 may 
 
53 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 Wheelwright probably received intelligence of the publi¬ 
 cation of this harfh and one-fided verfion of his former opin¬ 
 ions and conduCt at not far from the fame time that he was 
 apprifed of the unwarranted terms in which the Court had 
 characterized his application for remiffion of fentence. He 
 could hardly have helped feeling flung by the acrimonious 
 revival of the defunCl controverfy, after the lapfe of feven 
 long years, and at the very time when, by the encourage¬ 
 ment of influential inhabitants of the Bay, he was making 
 advances for a reconciliation. He had friends and relatives 
 in England, and was unwilling that they fhould take their 
 impreffions of his debut in the new world from the groffly 
 unfair flatements of his opponents. He therefore deter¬ 
 mined to publifh an anfwer to their afperfions, for the pur- 
 pofe of refcuing his character from mifreprefentation. It 
 was no fmall undertaking for him to bring out even a traCt 
 of a dozen leaves in London ; but he obtained the aid of 
 friends, no doubt, to fupervife the publication ; and, in 1645, 
 his reply was iffued, under the title of “ Mercurius Ameri- 
 canus.” As it is reproduced in the prefent volume, it is 
 only neceffary to fay of it here that, in tone and temper, it is 
 inconteflably fuperior to the “ Short Story; ” and, while 
 devoted efpecially to the vindication of its authors doctrinal 
 views, agreeably to the fchool of polemics then in vogue, it 
 contains fome keen retorts upon his detractors, and indicates 
 a mind trained to logical acutenefs, and imbued with the 
 learning of the times. In this literary paffage-at-arms, 
 
 though 
 
 may be inferred that he fuppofed Weld wilds of Wells, he was not at all likely 
 to be the author of the Short Story ; to have any authentic information on 
 but, living as the former did, in the the fubjedt. 
 
54 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 though Wheelwright dealt no foul blow, yet affuredly his 
 antagonifls did not carry off the honors of the field. 
 
 For two years after this controverfial epifode, Wells was 
 the fcene of Wheelwright’s labors. He continued, no doubt, 
 as long as he remained there, to occupy the pofition of fpir- 
 itual guide of the little church; but the lack of records leaves 
 the particulars of his doings in obfcurity. We cannot fup- 
 pofe, indeed, that, if we could penetrate the veil of years, 
 many fabts of importance or general interefl would be dis¬ 
 coverable. The monotony of border life, among a limited 
 population, mainly abforbed in providing for their daily 
 neceffities, could be broken by few incidents worthy of 
 prefervation. 
 
 A new home now beckoned to the wildernefs-preacher. 
 Hampton, with its fertile clearings and its rich falt-meadows, 
 poffeffed natural features which must have vividly reminded 
 Wheelwright of the fcenes of his early life. The place had 
 been fettled for fome years, and the people were feeking 
 for a colleague to be united in the paftoral relation with 
 their religious teacher, the Rev. Timothy Dalton. They 
 were pleafed with Wheelwright, and invited him to the 
 pofition. He was in no way difmclined to the propofal, 
 and in the fpring of 1647 repaired to Hampton, 76 and 
 entered into a written agreement with a committee of the 
 church and town, refpebting the terms of his fettlement, 
 which, as charableriftic of the parties and the times, is 
 deemed worthy of infertion : — 
 
 The 
 
 70 The town records of Hampton each of which the name of Wheel- 
 contain this and the fubfequent brief wright is affixed in his own hand, 
 agreement on the fame fubjedt, to 
 
55 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 The 12 daye 2 m° 1647 : 
 
 The Church of Jefus Chrift at Hampton haueing ferioufly confidered 
 the great paines & labours that the reverente & well-beloued M r 
 Tymothy Dalton haue taken among them in the worke of the miniftry 
 euen beyond his abilitie or ftrength of nater : And haueing upon sollemne 
 feeking of God fettled upon the reverent & well-beloued M r John 
 Whelewright of Wells as a help in the worke of the lord with the fayd 
 M r Dalton our p r fent & faithfull Teacher: And haue given the fayd 
 M r Whelewright a calle to that end with the confent of the hole towne: 
 The which the fayd M r Whelewright doe except off according unto God: 
 And thefe propotions following are agreed upon: & fubfcribed unto 
 by the fayd M r Whelewright for his p r t: & the fayd church with the 
 hole towne for ther p r t: who doth by thefe p r fents promife & oblige them- 
 felues to fulfill & p r forme the same : — 
 
 FirfL That in cafe the church of hampton fend for M r Whelewright 
 from Wells to be their Pafter or teacher They fhall beare thofe charges 
 of the tranfportation of himfelf : familie & goods to Hampton. 
 
 2. That the fayd M r Whelewright fhall haue a convenient houfe 
 provided for him & his familie to dwell in for the firft yeare by the fayd 
 church. 
 
 3. That the fayd M r Whelewright fhall haue a convenient houfe-lott as 
 likewife the ferme which was lately M r Batchilers given & confermed to 
 him & his heires for ever upon his ordination & continuence among us 
 — But if the fayd M r Whelewright fhall afterword remoue himfelf 
 without libertie from the fayd church — That then the fayd ferme fhall 
 remaine to the towne of Hampton for ever as their owne proprietie to 
 dispofe of: — 
 
 4. That the fayd M r Whelewright fhall haue yearly & every yeare payd 
 to him fortye pound for his paines among them as longe as he is their 
 paftor or Teacher — excepting only fome extraordinary hand of God in 
 waye of alteration: — The which fayd 40 1 is to be payd in corne cattle or 
 other good comodities quarterlye by fome whom the fayd church fhall 
 apoynt: by euen & equall propotions. 
 
 In cafe the church fend for M r Whelewright with a veffel to tranfport 
 him any time within two mounths after the date hereof with an abfolute 
 
 promife 
 
Memoir of 
 
 promife of ordination before the laffc of the feuenth mounth next following 
 — Then the fayd M r Whelewright fhall accordingly com unto them if 
 god phnitt: And if the fayd M r Whelewright fhall r.efufe ordination 
 lawefully tendered he fhall beare the charge of his tranfportatior\ & 
 receive nothing for his time among them: And in cafe the fayd Church 
 refufe to give him ordination before the end of the 7 m° next abfolutely 
 promifed him — he the fayd M r Whelewright fhall be payd for his tranf- 
 portation §1 for the time he is a Teacher among them & haue the ferme 
 before mentioned to him & his heires for ever — & haue libertie to 
 depart from them upon fuch refufeall. 
 
 In cafe the fayd church fhall fend the fayd M r Whelewright worde to 
 Wells any time within two mounths that they cannot ordaine him Paftor or 
 Teacher among them — then both the fayd church & the fayd M r 
 Whelewright fhall be free from all former ingagements contained in this 
 wrighting. 
 
 John Whelewright. 77 John Moulton. Will: Marston. 
 
 Jeffery Mingy. Will : Moulton. 
 
 William Samborne. 
 
 Willia Howard. 
 
 In the name of y° reft. 
 
 A month later the church voted to fulfil their part of the 
 preliminary agreement, in the following terms : — 
 
 The 15 : 3 m 0 1647 : 
 
 It is voted by the Church of Hampton that they fhall & will feijd a 
 boat for M r Whelewright to Wells to tranfport M r Whelewright & his 
 familie & alfo do promife to give him ordination according as is ex- 
 preffed in the couenant between them to the utmoft of their indever 
 according unto god, within the time therin mentioned. 
 
 I accept of this vote. p r Willia Howard in the name 
 
 John Whelewright. of the Church. 
 
 No 
 
 77 The obferving reader will notice Combination, the peculiar fpelling of 
 here, as in the fignature to the Exeter the name— PVkelewright. Its poffef- 
 
 for 
 
57 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 No time was loft in eftablifhing the new minifter in his 
 new home. That he was ordained (or inftalled) over the 
 fociety on the twenty-fourth of June following, is fairly 
 inferrible from the entries upon the town records, which 
 fhow that the interefting event of the receipt of his falary 
 occurred annually on that day thereafter] By his removal 
 to Hampton, he muft have found himfelf in many refpedls 
 more eligibly fituated than at Wells. The people of his 
 charge were more numerous, and, probably, in the main, 
 more intelligent, than thofe he had quitted. They were 
 certainly better able to provide for his fuitable maintenance, 
 which was no fmall confideration to a man of fifty-five, with 
 a goodly family. He was within the reach of more con¬ 
 genial fociety. No longer in a frontier clearing, an interval 
 of but few miles feparated him from profeffional brethren 
 and laymen of culture and focial refinement. To a univer- 
 fity-bred clergyman, for years fhut out from fuch com- 
 panionfhip, the boon muft have been peculiarly welcome. 
 
 The condudl of Wheelwright’s parifhioners at Hampton 
 evinces their appreciation of his deferts as a minifter, and 
 their readinefs to teftify it by fubftantial tokens. Before he 
 had been three years with them, the town ‘voted to give 
 him in fee, the farm of two hundred acres that had at firft 
 been granted to him conditionally, and “ the prudential 
 men ” conveyed it to him by deed, dated the fourteenth of 
 February, 1650. Subfequently, on the twenty-eighth of 
 December, 1654, the town made an addition of twenty-five 
 per centum to his annual falary. 
 
 But 
 
 for uniformly wrote it in this manner to this country, he adopted the orthog¬ 
 in early life, and up to the time of his raphy which has ever fince prevailed, 
 return to England. After he came back 
 
 t 
 
 8 
 
Memoir of 
 
 But Wheelwright, perhaps, valued more highly ftill the 
 fervice which his people rendered him, in procuring from 
 the General Court of Maffachufetts what he muft have 
 conceived to be a tardy adt of juftice to himfelf. The 
 ftatements contained in the “ Short Story,” affuming to be 
 an authoritative expofition by the Maffachufetts officials of 
 their dealings with him, and the grounds thereof, were no 
 doubt commonly accepted as fuch in England, and had 
 been indorfed in the writings of the Rev. Samuel Ruther- 
 * ford, a Scottifh divine of fome eminence. 78 Wheelwright 
 had, probably, long felt that fome reparation was due to 
 him for the unfriendly attitude in which the authorities of 
 the Bay, through thofe ftatements, and by their con- 
 ftruftion of his application for remiffion of fentence, ap¬ 
 peared to ftand towards him. No doubt his townfmen 
 were aware of his feeling, and were anxious to have every 
 poffible imputation upon the character of their paftor 
 wiped away. On the firft of May, 1654, they held a 
 meeting, at which they drew up and fubfcribed a petition 
 to the Legiflature, for the purpofe of eliciting a teftimonial 
 from that body in his favor, and then ordered “ that the 
 petition framed and figned att the prefent metting for the 
 vindication of Mr. Wheelwrights name, fhould be prefented 
 to the next Generali court.” 79 
 
 This was done without lofs of time, and on the third of 
 
 May 
 
 78 The work is entitled “ A Survey opinions condemned by the Cambridge 
 of the Spirituall Antichrist,” and was Synod into the lefs ftartling number 
 publithed in London, 1648. Chapters 15 of 53, he gravely declares that Wheel- 
 and 16 are devoted to a caftigation of wright and Mrs. Hutchinfon were the 
 the Antinomians and Familifts of New firft authors of them all. — Rutherford's 
 England. A fpecimen brick of his Survey , 176. 
 curious edifice will fuffice. After con- 79 Hampton records, 
 denting the gift of the 82 erroneous 
 
59 
 
 Wheelwright . 
 
 May the Court declared, in anfwer thereto, that they were 
 “not willing to recall thofe vncomfortable differences that 
 formerly paffed betwixt this Court and M r Whelwright, 
 concerning matters of religion or pradiife, nor do they 
 know what M r Rutherford or M r Wells hath charged 
 him with, yet they judg meete to certifie that M r Whel¬ 
 wright hath long fince giuen fuch fatisfadlion both to the 
 Court & elders generally as that he is now, & fo for 
 many years hath bin, an officer in y e church at Hampton 
 w th in o r jurifdidlion, & y t w <h out offence to any fo far as we 
 know & as we are informed, he hath bin a vfeful & pfitable 
 inftrument of doinge much good in that church.” 80 
 
 Cotton Mather, in his “ Magnalia,” 81 ftates that Wheel¬ 
 wright in the fame year “ publifhed a vindication of himfelf 
 againft the wrongs that by Mr. Weld and by Mr. Ruther¬ 
 ford had been done unto him. In this vindication he not 
 only produces a fpeech of Mr. Cotton, ‘ I do conceive and 
 profefs that our brother Wheelwright’s dodirine is according 
 to God in the points controverted,’ but alfo a declaration 
 from the whole General Court of the colony, figned by 
 the fecretary, Auguft 24, 1654, upon the petition of Mr. 
 Wheelwright’s church at Hampton, in which declaration 
 they profefs, that hearing that Mr. Wheelwright is by Mr. 
 Rutherford and Mr. Weld rendered, in fome books printed 
 by them, as heretical and criminous, they now fignify that 
 Mr. Wheelwright hath, for thefe many years, approved 
 himfelf a found, orthodox and profitable minifter of the 
 gofpel, among the churches of Christ.” 
 
 From 
 
 80 3 Mafs. Colonial Records, 344. 81 Book VII., chap. iii. fee. 3. 
 
6o 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 From the beft information obtainable, the “ vindication ” 
 appears never to have been printed,. but to have been 
 publifhed only in manufcript; it is improbable, therefore, 
 that its contents will ever be exadfly known. 82 
 
 Whether it was in anticipation of a return to England 
 that Wheelwright defired to have his pofition thus fet right, 
 we have no means of knowledge; but, either in 1655 or in 
 
 41 
 
 the early part of 1656, he made a voyage thither. 83 The 
 extraordinary events which had revolutionized the govern¬ 
 ment of the old country had not, of courfe, paffed without 
 awakening the deepeft intereff in the new. The execution, 
 of King Charles, the ufurpation of the fovereign power by 
 a commoner by birth and an Independent in religion, the 
 fubverfion of the old hierarchy, and the freedom of the 
 pulpit to Puritans, — thefe were occurrences which, if 
 not fully approved by the intelligent of New England, 
 feemed, at lead to many, aufpicioils for her future fortunes. 
 To Wheelwright, the acceffion to pofitions of eminence of 
 two of his perfonal friends — .Cromwell, in whofe company 
 he had trodden the claffic halls of Cambridge, and Vane, 
 
 by 
 
 82 No allufion to the “vindication” 
 is known earlier than that in the Mag- 
 nalia ; which circumftance alone would 
 argue that it never appeared in print. 
 Mather evidently had no copy of it, for 
 he mifquoted the language of the Gen¬ 
 eral Court fo widely as to make it evi¬ 
 dent that he relied merely upon recol¬ 
 lection. Savag^, who remarked upon 
 “the fcarcity of the traCt” in a way to 
 lead his readers to fuppofe he had 
 feen it, evidently had not, for he fim- 
 ply repeated Mather’s account of it, in 
 all its inaccuracy. — i Sav. Wint. 
 
 *215 n. (1.) Inquiries at the a principal 
 libraries of Americana in New Eng¬ 
 land, and a communication inferted-in 
 the English Notes and Queries by my 
 friend the Rev. Mr. Slafter (though it 
 led to a fearch of the vaft collections 
 of the Britifh Mufeum, of the Bodleian 
 Library at Oxford, and of the Univer- 
 fity Library at Cambridge), have failed 
 to elicit any further light refpeCting this 
 production. 
 
 83 His laft receipt of falary in Hamp¬ 
 ton was in midfummer of 1655. 
 
Wheelwright. 
 
 by whofe fide he had withftood the fhock of religious 
 perfecution in Maffachufetts — muft have been peculiarly 
 interefling. Each of them in his department had wielded 
 the refources of their powerful country with the hand of a 
 matter, and both flood among the foremoft men of their 
 age. It was natural that the paftor of Hampton fhould 
 yearn once more to vifit the land of his nativity, to behold 
 with his own eyes the great changes that had befallen her 
 in the fcore of years which had paffed fince his laft view of 
 her receding fliores. 
 
 He did not, on quitting Hampton, diffolve his connection 
 with his fociety, for it is unlikely that he had any definite 
 plan with refpedl to the duration of his abfence. 84 When 
 he arrived in England, he found his two powerful friends, 
 who were but recently contending fide by fide for political 
 and religious liberty, ‘eflranged and hoftile. Vane had 
 retired from public life, while Cromwell feemed to be 
 dreaming of a regal fceptre. Fortunately for our New 
 England vifitor, their fundered .paths prevented neither of 
 them from giving him a cordial welcome. He became a 
 particular favorite with Cromwell, during the fhort re¬ 
 mainder of the life of that eminent perfonage. 85 
 
 It is much to be regretted that the correfpondence which 
 
 Wheelwright 
 
 84 In December, 1656, the people of 
 Hampton voted to employ an affiftant 
 for the Rev. Mr. Dalton, their teacher, 
 until they could fee “ how God would 
 difpofe of them in refpedt of their paf¬ 
 tor ” (Wheelwright). 
 
 85 Hutchinfon, in 1 Hitt. Maff. 177 
 (3d Am. ed.), advances the opinion that 
 Cromwell, who muft have been aware 
 of Vane’s friendfhip for Wheelwright, 
 
 was diflembling when he pretended to 
 be his friend alfo. Without inquiring 
 whether the great ufurper in his dif- 
 truft of Vane muft neceffarily have 
 included one who was in no way in¬ 
 volved in the political movements of 
 the time, it is thought fufficient in the 
 text to ftate the matter as it has been 
 generally underftood. 
 
62 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 Wheelwright is known to have maintained, at this time, 
 with his cifatlantic friends, has difappeared. It would, doubt- 
 lefs, have afforded intereffcing views of the Protestor as feen 
 by New England eyes, and would have fupplied information, 
 which is not known to be elfewhere attainable, of Wheel- 
 wright’s whereabout and occupation during the years of his 
 later refidence in England. Though a letter which he then 
 wrote to the church at Hampton was preferved to the 
 commencement of the prefent century, as we are informed 
 on good authority, 86 yet only a portion of it is now to be 
 found, — the foie remaining veftige of its author’s epiftolary 
 writings during his abfence. We give the fragment which 
 was luckily preferved by Hutchinfon. 87 It bears date the 
 twentieth of April, 1658. 
 
 I have lately been at London about five weeks. My Lord Protedfor 
 was pleated to fend one of his guard for me, with whom I had difcourfe 
 in private about the fpace of an hour. All his fpeeches teemed to me 
 very orthodox and gracious, no way favoring fectaries. He fpake very 
 experimentally to my apprehenfion of the work of God’s grace ; and 
 knowing what oppofition I met withal from tome whom I fliall not name, 
 exhorted me to perfeverance in thefe very words as I remember. “ Mr. 
 Wheelwright, Hand faft in the Lord, and you fhall fee that thefe notions 
 will vanifh into nothing,” or to that effedt. Many men, efpecially the 
 fectaries, exclaim againft him, with open mouths; but I hope he is a 
 gracious man. I faw* the Lord Mayor and Sheriff with their officers 
 carry fundry of the fifth monarchy men to prifon, as Mr. Cam, Mr. Day, 
 with others who ufed to meet together in Colman ftreet to preach and 
 pray againft the Lord Protedtor and the prefent power. 
 
 The people of Wells and the adjoining places had occa- 
 
 • fion, 
 
 86 Eliot’s Biographical Didtionary, 87 i Hift. Mafs., 178, n. 
 article “ Wheelwright.” 
 
Wheelwright. 
 
 lion, in 1658, to petition Cromwell to confirm the jurifdififion 
 of Maffachufetts over them. It was a pleafing evidence of 
 their regard for their former pafior, as well as a recognition 
 of the influential pofition which he was underftood to hold 
 with the Protedlor, that in their petition they refer to their 
 “pyous and reverend friend, Mr. John Wheelwright, fome- 
 time of us, now in England,” for any defired information 
 refpedfing their condition and charadler. 88 
 
 After the death of Cromwell, it is probable that Wheel¬ 
 wright paffed the mofl of the remaining time of his flay in 
 England among his relatives in Lincolnfiiire, where he ftill 
 retained his patrimonial lands. No doubt he made his 
 abode chiefly at Belleau, 89 the favorite refidence of Sir 
 Henry Vane, “who had greatly noticed him fince his 
 arrival in the kingdom,” and was his firm friend. 90 Vane, 
 however, was foon again embarked upon the flormy fea of 
 political life, and for a time rode proudly upon the fummit 
 of the billows, wafted apparently by profperous gales. His 
 hopes of the eftablifhment of a permanent fyfiem of 
 popular government in his native land appeared to be juft 
 approaching fruition, when they were daflied to the ground 
 by an untoward concurrence of unlooked-for events, which 
 led to the Refloration. Vane was configned to imprifon- 
 ment, from which he only emerged to undergo the death 
 of a heroic political martyr, in June, 1662. 
 
 It was, probably, not until this tragical event had clofed 
 
 the 
 
 88 Hutchinfon’s Collection, 314. 22, 1677, in confideration of the mar- 
 
 89 Wheelwright defcribed himfalf as riage of the latter with his youngeft 
 “ late of Belleau, county of Lincoln, daughter, Sarah. — See Suffolk Regif 
 England,” in a conveyanceof land by try of Deeds, B. ix. p. 215. 
 
 him made to Richard Crifpe, October 90 1 Hutchinfon’s Hift. Mafs., 177. 
 
Memoir of 
 
 the career of the great man with whom in early manhood, 
 as well as in his later prime, it was Wheelwright’s privilege 
 to live on terms of confidence and friendfhip, that the latter 
 turned his face again towards New England. He arrived 
 here, together with feveral other minifters, in the fummer 
 of 1662. 91 His place in Hampton had, of courfe, long before 
 been fupplied; but the people of the neighboring town of 
 Salif bury, who had known him in years pafi, welcomed him 
 with a call to become their pafior, though he had now 
 arrived at man’s allotted age of threefcore years and ten. 
 Vigorous fiill, however, in mind and body, he complied 
 with their with, and was inftalled over them on the ninth of 
 December in the fame year. 92 
 
 His people at once guaranteed him an honorable fupport. 
 At a meeting of the town held fix days after his inftallation, 
 “ It was concluded & agreed upon that Rev d Mr. John 
 Wheelwright fliall have for his maintenance whilft he fhall 
 continue amongft us three fcore pounds a year while the 
 new towne continues as one with us, & when & while the 
 new towne 93 fliall maintain a minifier of themfelves, & then 
 to have £50 per annum of the old towne during his con¬ 
 tinuance with them in the work of the minifiry, befides the 
 accommodations of houfe and land.” Eight days later, the 
 town “ Ordered that there fliall be about 20 acres of that 
 meadow which is commonly called the elders’ cove, allotted 
 unto the perpetual ufe of the minifiry for the old towne of 
 
 Salifbury.” 
 
 91 This fa6t appears among memo- 92 Contributions to the Ecclefiaftical 
 randa of the Rev. Samuel Danforth, in Hiftory of EtTex County, 224. 
 the MS. record-book of the church in 93 The “ new towne ” was Amefbury, 
 Roxbury, depofited with the N. E. Hilt. which was afterwards, in 1668, dulv 
 
 Genealogical Society, Bolton. 
 
 conllituted a feparate townlhip. 
 
Wheelwright . 65 
 
 Salifbury.” The townfmen alfo appointed a committee 
 “ to buy the widow Morrill’s houfe & houfe-lott at the Old 
 toun, for the ufe of the miniftry.” 94 
 
 It was under thefe agreeable conditions that Wheelwright 
 entered upon the laft, and, ftrange to fay, the longeft 
 paftorate of his varied life. It might not unreafonably be 
 expected that fome written memorials of this comparatively 
 recent period had been fpared, to afford an infight into the 
 every-day habits and experience of the old-time minifter ; 
 but every memorandum of a private character appears to 
 have long paffed into oblivion. No diary, letters, or other 
 writings are known to exiffc, to fired light upon this intereft- 
 ing phafe of his life. Even the records of the church of 
 Salifbury during Wheelwright’s incumbency have difap- 
 peared. The meagre knowledge we poffefs of his doings 
 there is limited to a few noteworthy circumftances gathered 
 from the books of the town and other fcattered fources. 
 
 On the eighth of October, 1664, he was appointed referee 
 to determine a difference between Robert Ring and the town ; 
 an indication, certainly, that his impartiality and good judg¬ 
 ment were held in favorable eflimation. On the twentieth 
 of December, the fame year, the town refolved to build a 
 new meeting-houfe with all convenient fpeed, which praife- 
 worthy determination may have been carried into effedt, 
 though the fubfequent filence of the records upon the fub- 
 jedt renders it improbable. Perhaps it was this demonftra- 
 tion that induced the minifter to recur to the promife of his 
 
 people, 
 
 94 Records of Salifbury; to which there, which are not credited to other 
 we are indebted for moft of the fadls fources. 
 refpedting Wheelwright’s refidence 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 people, on hisfettlement, tofurnifh him “accommodations of 
 houfe and land,” which had not been performed to his 
 fatisfadlion. He was not the man to keep filence when 
 his dues were withheld, and it may be imagined that he • 
 fpoke his mind freely on this occafion. In confequence 
 thereof, at a town meeting held on the fixth of March, 
 1665, a committee was chofen to treat with him. That he 
 was not altogether unreafonable in his demands is evidenced 
 by the fadt, that the town authorized the prudential men 
 “to build a fide leanter 95 to the toun-barn which is for the 
 miniltry & lay a floor to thrafh on in the f d barn, and alfo 
 to link a ftone well for conveniency of water to the houfe, 
 and alfo to make a convenient place in one of the garrets 
 for a library, & any other fmall finifhing work which is not 
 already agreed to be done, & alfo to make a new and fuffi- 
 cient fence between John Eatons land and the towns.” 
 But the townfmen fubjoined the provifo, with laudable 
 caution againft committing themfelves too deeply for the 
 future; “This we do in our refpedts to our Rev d pallor Mr. 
 Wheelwright, & not as bound by covenant thereunto.” 
 
 The knowledge that Wheelwright poffeffed, refpedling 
 the titles and boundaries of lands in the part of the country 
 which had been firft occupied under his obfervation, led to 
 the taking of his teltimony, about this time, in certain cafes 
 where thofe matters came in queltion. In 1663, and in 
 1668, he gave affidavits in regard to his purchafe of the 
 Indians’ rights to the territory about Exeter, copies of 
 which were apparently ufed in the trial of many caufes. 
 
 Thefe 
 
 05 Lean-to ; a pent-houfe. 
 
Wheelwright. 67 
 
 Thefe affidavits have an important bearing upon the quef- 
 tion of the genuinenefs of the Indian deed of 1629, and 
 will be fpecially referred to in the chapter of this work 
 devoted to that fubjedf. 
 
 In June, 1665, Richard Nicholls, Sir Robert Carr, George 
 Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick, the Commiffioners ap¬ 
 pointed by the king to vifit the feveral colonies of New 
 England to determine complaints and appeals, and provide 
 for the peace and fecurity of the country, in the difcharge 
 of their duties proceeded to make inquiry concerning the 
 boundary line between Maffachufetts and Mafon’s patent of 
 New Hampfhire. In connexion with other teftimony, they 
 took the Aatement of Wheelwright, to the effedf that when 
 he was banifhed from Maffachufetts, nearly thirty years 
 before, he was allowed to remain unmoleffced a little way 
 beyond the “ bound-houfe ” as it was termed, which was 
 fituated in Hampton, a large three miles north of the Mer- 
 rimac River. 96 The tendency of the evidence was to curtail 
 the poffeffions of Maffachufetts, which the Commiffioners 
 were well inclined to do, had it been defired by the inhab¬ 
 itants on the Pafcataqua. The latter, however, had no 
 ambition to affume the refponfibilities of a feparate govern¬ 
 ment, and the queftion of the boundary-line was difmiffed 
 to the fucceeding century for final adjuftment. 
 
 The life of Wheelwright, apparently, now flowed on for 
 feveral fucceffive years in the even current which indicated 
 mutual fatisfadiion between minifter and people. Up to 
 June, 1670, no more important entry refpediing parochial 
 
 affairs 
 
 96 1 Belknap’s Hift. New Hampfhire, 106. 
 
68 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 affairs is found upon the record-books of Salifbury than 
 the appointment of a committee to procure the digging of 
 a new well for the parfonage. A year afterwards, the aged 
 but ftill adfive paftor is heard of in Portfmouth, on the 
 occafion of the ordination of the Rev. Jofhua Moody, to 
 whom he, as the fenior minifter prefent, gave the right hand 
 of fellowfhip. It could not have been dreamed by either 
 of them at the time, that, by a fmgular parallel of fortune, 
 the younger brother was deftined ere long to undergo bitter 
 trials for confcience’ fake, even as the elder had done in 
 years bygone. 97 
 
 After the reparation of Amefbury from Salifbury, the 
 falary of Wheelwright was reduced, according to the terms 
 of his fettlement, by a fixth part. This he found inade¬ 
 quate to his fupport; and, after fome years, as the town took 
 no fteps to increafe it, his friends petitioned the County 
 Court to make an order for the purpofe, as follows: — 
 
 The humble req st To the Honored Court now held at Saif bury of we 
 whofe names are under written, 
 
 Is that you would be pleafed to Confider of and fo fettle unto our 
 reverend paftor M r John Whellwright an honorable maintenance for he 
 haveing had butt fiuety pounds a yeare, the accommodation excepted, fince 
 the new towne were parted from the old toune, which our paftor fays he 
 cannot Comfortably liue on, and we alfo thinke the fame and are willing 
 
 I 
 
 more 
 
 97 In 1684, Edward Cranfield, Gov- real caufe of this hypocritical, arbitrary, 
 ernor of New Hampfhire, then eredted and illegal adt is to be found in the fadt 
 into a feparate province, under pretence that Moody rightfully perfifted in call- 
 that Moody had violated a ftatute of ing to account a member of his church 
 England in refuting to adminifter to who had committed perjury in a cafe of 
 him and two of his councillors the violation of the cufloms laws, and 
 ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, after whom the governor wifhed to fcreen 
 the forms of the Epifcopal church, from cenfure. 
 caufed him to be imprifoned. The 
 
Wheelwright . 
 
 more fhould be allowed him butt itt cannott be yett attained to be done 
 by the towne in generall, and foe our refuge is to this honored Court that 
 it may be done according to the law of God and the Countrey. 
 
 William buswel, Ephraim Winsley, 
 
 Samuel Fellows, fenior, Isack Buswel, 
 
 John Ilsly, John Severance, 
 
 John Gill, John Stevens, fen r , 
 
 Joseph Ffrench, Edward Ffrench. 98 
 
 The court poftponed the confideration of the petition to 
 the enfuing feffion at Hampton, and nothing is found to 
 indicate its ultimate fate. 
 
 Wheelwright, as has already been intimated, though con- 
 ftant to his pafloral duties, was not inattentive to temporal 
 concerns. Indeed, for the decent fupport of his large 
 family, he muff have found it neceffary to engage in fome 
 remunerative occupation, outfide his profeffion. It was 
 cuftomary and expedled that a country minifter fhould eke 
 out his falary by the cultivation of the foil; and Wheel¬ 
 wright had farming lands which he doubtlefs tilled with his 
 own hands, while he was fettled in Exeter, Wells, Hampton, 
 and Salifbury. He was alfo interefted in faw-mills in 
 Wells and Hampton, which were a fource of fome revenue. 
 Thefe poffeffions involved him in dealings with divers per- 
 fons, fome of whom were delinquent in performing their 
 engagements. The confequence was that Wheelwright, who 
 flood up manfully for his rights, was obliged to have re- 
 courfe on feveral occafions to the ftrong arm of the law. 
 The records of the court on the criminal fide fhow alfo 
 
 one 
 
 ® 8 Records of the old county of Norfolk, at Salem. 
 
jo Memoir of 
 
 one cafe in which he was interefted. In 1675, Thomas 
 Rawlinfon was prefented for charging the paftor of Salif- 
 bury church with “ inhumanitie.” What particular a6l of 
 Wheelwright he thus ftigmatized cannot with certainty be 
 learned; but it is very poffible that it was the advice which 
 the former is reported to have given, fome years previoufly, 
 in regard to the execution of a cruel fentence againft fome 
 Quaker women." If that was the cafe, the claims of the 
 “ higher law ” were not recognized by thofe in authority two 
 centuries ago; for Rawlinfon was tried and convidfed, pub¬ 
 licly admonifhed of his fin, bound over to good behavior, 
 and muldted in cofts. 
 
 It would have been a wonder if fo ftirring and refolute a 
 man as Wheelwright had fucceeded in wielding the great 
 powers which his pofition gave him in the,.town, without 
 making an enemy. After living in Salifbury for half a 
 generation, it was his fortune to come in collifion with one 
 of the principal members of his church, Major Robert Pike, 
 a man of ftrong will and of no infignificant pofition. 100 The 
 
 original 
 
 99 The incident is related by Bifhop, Bifhop fays that “John Wheelwright, 
 in his New England Judged, 368, and the pried, advifed the conltable to drive 
 n. (2d ed.) -Richard Walderne iffued on, as his fafeft way.” Perhaps the 
 a warrant at Dover, the twenty-fecond • ftory ought to be taken with fome 
 of December, 1662, diredted to the grains of allowance, as Bifhop had 
 conltables of ten feveral towns, requir- little mercy on the “prielts,” and ac- 
 ing them to take and convey through cufes the excellent Reyner, of Dover, 
 faid towns, at the cart’s tail, three Qua- of intligating the profecution. Raw- 
 ker women, whipping them upon their linfon is thought to have been a 
 naked backs not exceeding ten ftripes Quaker, which would account for his 
 apiece in each town. The cruel order imputing to Wheelwright, as a fault, an 
 was performed with more or lefs ftridh- adt which would by the community 
 nefs until the poor women reached generally, the court included, have 
 Salifbury, where Walter Barefoote hu- been efteemed meritorious, 
 inanely procured the conltable to make 100 The offices of Major in the Mili- 
 him his deputy, and fet them at liberty, tia, and of Affiftant, which Pike held, 
 
 were 
 
71 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 original caufe of their difference is not known, but there is 
 reafon to believe that it was connected with the divifion of 
 the town, — a fort of tranfadlion which is rarely effedled 
 without jealoufy and difcord. The difficulty between the 
 parties did not break out into open hoftilities till feveral 
 years later. 
 
 The firft allufion to it which we can difcover is in a 
 petition addreffed by Wheelwright to the Executive of the 
 Colony, which ran thus: — 
 
 To the Hon. Jno. Leverett , Esq r Gov r the Pet. of Jno. Wheelewrvght of 
 Salisbury humbly fheweth — 
 
 Whereas your Petitioner is bound for Engl d . upon vrgent & weighty 
 reafons & is by Major Robert Pike (as he app r hends) injurioufly & ille¬ 
 gally obftrudted caufeing him to giue one hundred pounds bonds for his 
 appearance at Court in Aprill next, to anfw r in a matter wherein he 
 doubts not to cleare his innocency, but fhall inevitably be a fufferer by 
 y e obftrubtion thereby giuen him in his intended voyage: your petitioner 
 do therefore humbly craue the fav r of this Hon. Councell fo farr to 
 confider the p r mifes as to favor yr. Peten r with comanding the above faid 
 Major Pike to appeare before y r hon d felves & give the reafons of his 
 adfions.in y° premifes, & y r Petn r fhall ever Pray. 
 
 John Wheelwright. 
 
 This petition was prefented about the month of February, 
 1 675-6, and, on the tenth of the next March, the Court of 
 
 Affiflants 
 
 were of no fmall account then. Twenty franchifed, and for four years refufed 
 years before this, Pike had fhown the to make any acknowledgment of his 
 qualities of his tongue and temper by offence; but at length, upon the pay¬ 
 charging the majority of the General ment of his fine, and by the interceffion 
 Court with breaking their oath in vot- of the Rev. Mr. Worcefter in his 
 ing for a law which he difrelifhed. behalf, he was reftored to the privileges 
 For this offence he was fined and dif- of citizenfhip. 
 
7 2 
 
 Memoir of 
 
 Affiftants and Council, upon mature confideration, “adjudged 
 and declared the warrant of Major Robert Pike whereby 
 Mr. Wheelwright was convented before him, to be illegall, 
 & that therefore Mr. Wheelwright & his fureties are not 
 obliged by the bond given for his appearance at Hampton 
 Court next: And that Major Pike beare the neceffary 
 charges of Mr. Wheelwright’s attendance upon this Court 
 in this bufinefs.” 101 
 
 Pike was of a temper that could ill brook fuch a rebuke. 
 It only ferved to intenfify his inimical feeling toward his 
 paftor. It is not ftrange that he ftrove to form a party 
 againft Wheelwright, nor that he fucceeded. Some mem¬ 
 bers of the church gave him their countenance, and thus 
 that body became involved in the feud. It was at this ftage 
 of the controverfy, probably, that the miniffcer called upon 
 the civil authorities for their intervention, in a petition 
 conceived in moderation and no unkindly fpirit. 
 
 To the Honoured General Court now affanbled at Boflon. The humble 
 petition of John Wheelwrightpajlor of the church of Salifbury , 
 Sheweth 
 
 That whereas there has arifen among vs in our church fundry differ¬ 
 ences, efpecially about the diuiding of the New Towne from the Old, 
 (concerning which peradventure the Court was not rightly informed) fo 
 that our peace is broken & the free comfortable paffage of Chrits ordi¬ 
 nances obftrubted. Which differences we haue not been able for the fpace 
 of aboue two yeares to compote among & by our felves, & the church 
 refufeth to bring the caufe to any open, publicke hearing: 
 
 You would be pleated to graunt & declare, that our caufe may be 
 
 brought 
 
 101 Maffachufetts Archives, “ Eccle- contemplated a voyage to England, at 
 fiaftical.” vol. i. p. 37. The purpofe this time, has not been afcertained. 
 for which the energetic old minifter 
 
73 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 brought before a Counfel w ch you fhall appoint, that they may giue vs a 
 full hearing, who by their right judgement of things, & graue advice 
 according to god, may afford vs their affiftance in remouing offences, & 
 the fettlement of peace y* hereby gods ordinances w th vs may haue their 
 free courfe the church & people edifyed, the glorious Gofpel of our lord 
 & fauiour adorned, & the name of the greate god which is called vpo 
 vs be glorifyed. 
 
 So fhall y or humble petitioner pray &c. 102 
 
 The judicious requeft for the appointment of a council 
 of difinterefted men to invefligate the caufes of the trouble 
 at Salif bury, and advife the belt means of effecting a recon¬ 
 ciliation, was difregarded for the time; and the parties, left 
 to their own devices, went only wider afunder. Pike made 
 many charges againft Wheelwright, fome of them in writing, 
 and went fo far on one occafion as to call upon him publicly 
 to “ caft the beam from his own eye,” before attempting to 
 remove the mote from his brothers eye. A majority of the 
 church fupported Wheelwright, but a confiderable minority 
 fided with his opponent. When the brethren attempted 
 to fubjedl Pike to difcipline for his mifcondudl, he “ refufed 
 their judgment with much contempt.” Thereupon they 
 refolved to expel him, “ if he repented not; ” and Wheel¬ 
 wright, granting him but fmall locus penitentice, pronounced 
 fentence of excommunication upon him. 
 
 While matters were at this ferious pafs, in the fpring of 
 1677, feveral difaffedled members of the church and inhab¬ 
 itants of the town addreffed a petition to the General Court, 
 in which they alleged that Wheelwright was the caufe of 
 the difturbance; that his preaching had a tendency to 
 
 inflame 
 
 102 Mafs. Archives, “ Ecclefiaftical,” vol. i. p. 114. 
 
 10 
 
Memoir of 
 
 inflame the minds of the people one againfl another; and 
 prayed that he might be removed from his miniftry. The 
 Legislature then recognized the propriety of the courfe 
 previoufly propofed by Wheelwright, and appointed a Com¬ 
 mittee of Several of the moft prominent and judicious 
 citizens of the colony to repair to Salisbury, inquire into 
 the difficulties, and if poSflble bring them to a peaceful 
 conclusion . 103 
 
 The duty aSflgned the Committee was performed in a 
 Satisfactory manner. Like moft referees, they divided the 
 blame between the parties; but they attributed to Pike 
 much the greater fliare. They required him to make con- 
 fefflon of his faults, and enjoined the church thereupon to 
 receive him again into communion. And, finally, they 
 counselled the town to procure an affiftant to their aged 
 paftor in the work of his ministry, “ not abating,” however, 
 “ his former maintenance among them.” 
 
 The Committee wifely determined to remain and See 
 their award carried into effeCt; which, after a night’s con- 
 fideration, and with Some difficulty, was accomplished . 104 So 
 far as appears, it was no hollow truce that enfued, but a 
 genuine pacification: the parties having once been brought 
 together, remained ever after on terms of concord and 
 amity. 
 
 The remaining two years of Wheelwright’s life were 
 
 apparently 
 
 103 5 Mafs. Colonial Records (part 2), 
 144. The Committee confided of “Maj. 
 Gen. Denifon, Thomas Danforth, and 
 Jofeph Dudley, Efqs., Maj. Thomas 
 Savage, Capt. Hugh Mafon, Capt. 
 Daniel Fifher, Maj. Samuel Appleton, 
 and Mr. Thomas Graves.” Five or 
 
 fix of the number went to Salifbury, 
 and took part in the invedigation. 
 
 104 5 Mafs. Colonial Records (part 
 2), 180. The report of the Committee 
 recites many of the circumftances at¬ 
 tending the progrefs of the difficulty, 
 which have been dated in the text. 
 
75 
 
 W'heelwright . 
 
 apparently unclouded with trouble or care. He probably 
 continued to perform his paftoral duties a great part of the 
 time, for no regular afliftant was employed till June, 1679, 
 when the Rev. George Burroughs, whose name afterwards 
 acquired a fad prominence in one of the moffc tragical 
 chapters of New England hiftory, 105 was engaged to render 
 him aid, upon a flipend raifed by voluntary monthly con¬ 
 tributions. 
 
 The old paftors work was now fubflantially over. He 
 had reached the venerable age of eighty-feven years, with 
 remarkably little diminution of his powers of body or mind. 
 The end was near, and it was decreed in mercy that it 
 fliould come without protracted helpleffnefs or fuffering. 
 He died fuddenly, of apoplexy, on the fifteenth of Novem¬ 
 ber, 1679. He was buried, tradition fays, in the graveyard 
 in the Eaft village of Salifbury. No chifelled monument 
 marks the fpot, nor is any needed, to perpetuate the 
 memory of the man. 
 
 A review of the life and character of Wheelwright leads 
 to the conclufion that he has had fcanty juftice from his 
 contemporaries, or from thofe who followed them. 
 
 He had failings, patent to every eye. He was conten¬ 
 tious, and lacked a conciliatory fpirit. He never fhrank 
 from controverfy, but poffeffed the gaudium certominis in 
 a degree which the higheft efforts of felf-difcipline were 
 fcarcely fufficient to overcome. I11 his encounter with the 
 
 rulers 
 
 105 This gentleman, a graduate of againft him was that he had performed 
 Harvard, a minifter of ability and feats of bodily ftrength which would 
 piety, was a victim of the witchcraft have been impoflible without diaboli- 
 delulion, in 1692. One of the charges cal affiftance. 
 
Memoir of 
 
 rulers of Maffachufetts, while he was right in yielding no 
 convidlion, he was unqueftionably to blame for much of the 
 temper and fpirit which he difplayed. By a more moderate 
 carriage he might have mitigated the bitterriefs of ft rife, 
 though it is difficult to conceive that he could have con¬ 
 tinued among them without a facriftce of principle. 
 
 Yet it muft be faid that Wheelwright was neither intract¬ 
 able nor unforgiving. The fair conftruCtion of his letters 
 to the General Court and Governor Winthrop, in 1643-4, 
 indicates his capacity both to fee and acknowledge his 
 miftakes of judgment and faults of temper. In his later 
 controverfy with Pike, when age may have rendered him 
 more querulous and opinionated, he ftiowed that he was 
 amenable to good counfels, and capable of hearty for¬ 
 give nefs. 
 
 o > 
 
 The impreffion we are liable to form of Wheelwright is 
 that of an auftere man, rigorous in exacting his own, prone 
 to litigation. But this may be a harfh judgment, on our 
 very imperfeft knowledge. He was by nature thrifty, and 
 had a large and expenfive family to provide for. For 
 feveral years he was abfent in England, where he probably 
 enjoyed little income. His lands yielded their increafe, but 
 his pofttion and mode of life required ready money, for 
 which he was ftraitened, no doubt, often enough to excufe 
 him for preffing others for the payment of his juft dues. 
 And we are hardly at liberty to blame even a clergyman 
 for too frequent appearance in the courts of juftice, unlefs 
 we have evidence that he was fometimes found on the 
 wrong fide. 
 
 It is to be remembered, too, that we have abfolutely no 
 
 acquaintance 
 
77 
 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 acquaintance with Wheelwrights focial or domeftic life. 
 But he bred his numerous children to become ufeful and 
 refpeCtable members of fociety; he was uniformly remem¬ 
 bered with efteem and affeCtion by his parifhioners in the 
 feveral places of his miniftrations; he gained, and preferved 
 through all changes of fortune, the friendfhip of two of the 
 foremoft characters of his time. If he had not poffeffed in 
 a high degree the qualities of mind and heart befitting the 
 feveral charaClers of parent, paftor, and friend, it is fafe to 
 fay that thefe things could not have been. 
 
 Wheelwright was notably energetic, induftrious, and 
 courageous. His intellect was vigorous and acute; he 
 could boaft an ample fhare of the learning of his age, 
 efpecially in the direction of his own profeffion. His fin- 
 cere piety was not called in queftion, even by thofe who 
 differed from him moft broadly. With thefe advantages 
 he muft have filled a larger fpace in the affairs of New 
 England, and exerted a wider influence, if he had not early 
 braved the power of Maffachufetts. For this he was never 
 heartily forgiven, — at leaft, until it was too late for him to 
 retrieve the pofition he had loft. 
 
 It has of late been much the fafhion to argue in excul¬ 
 pation of the leaders of the Maffachufetts Colony, for their 
 treatment of Wheelwright, as if it would be a difparagement 
 of them to admit that they were liable to any of the failings 
 of humanity. Such a notion is quixotic and fuperfluous. 
 The excellence and eminence of Governor Winthrop are 
 beyond cavil, and the character of the Puritans of the Bay 
 in general is worthy of fmcere refpeCl and admiration. 
 But they were fallible men, living in an age of intolerance, 
 
 and 
 
78 Memoir of Wheelwright. 
 
 1 
 
 and they made fad midakes. Their conduct towards 
 Wheelwright conditutes, in our judgment, their lead title 
 to refpedt. But they did fo much for virtue and humanity 
 that we can afford to look their failings in the face. The 
 exadt truth can never harm them. In their character, the 
 lights only hand out in greater prominence by reafon of 
 the contrafting fhadows. 
 
 Wheelwright, in making his brave dand for freedom of 
 opinion and of fpeech, was far in advance of his age. At 
 the prefent day, we are in a podtion to appreciate the pure 
 gold of his principles, purged from the drofs of paffion and 
 prejudice. While we recognize his foibles,—and who, 
 even of the great leaders of the world, has been without 
 them? — we believe that impartial hidory will award him 
 no indgnificant place among the heroic fpirits who have 
 been content to fubordinate ambition, and all perfonal con- 
 dderations, to the dictates of the highed duty. 
 
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED OF 1629; 
 
 WAS IT SPURIOUS? 
 
 HE Wheelwright deed, as it will be termed in 
 this paper, by way of diftindlion, purports to 
 be a conveyance, by four Indian chiefs, — Paffa- 
 conaway, Sagamore of Penacook; Runawit, 
 Sagamore of Pentucket; Wahangnownawit, 
 Sagamore of Squamfcot; and Rowls, Sagamore of Newich- 
 wanick, — to John Wheelwright, Auguftine Storre, Thomas 
 Wight, William Wentworth, and Thomas Levitt, all Eng- 
 lifhmen, and defcribed as of the Maffachufetts Bay. It 
 affumes to grant the right of the natives to an extenfive 
 tradt of land in southeaftern New Hampfliire, and bears 
 date the feventeenth of May, 1629. 106 
 
 The inftrument was found, probably between the months 
 of April and Auguft, 1707, feventy-eight years after its date, 
 “ on the ancient files for the County of York,” 107 Maine, in 
 
 the 
 
 106 The deed is given in full at the 107 Such was the certificate of Judge 
 end of this paper. Hammond, the Regifter. i Belknap’s 
 
 Hift. New Hampfhire App’x. iv. 
 
8o The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 the vicinity of the fpot where Wheelwright, the firft and 
 principal grantee, lived for fome years, and his fon and heir 
 had refided ever after; certainly a natural and proper place 
 of depofit. It was lit.upon, Cotton Mather writes, by a 
 gentleman “ as honeft, upright, and pious as any in the 
 world, and who would not do an ill thing to gain a world.” 
 He adds that it had upon it irrefragable marks of antiquity, 
 almoft as many as there be years in the number 1629. 108 We 
 are not informed who the perfon was that difcovered it; but 
 it is quite probable that it was Jofeph Hammond, who, with 
 his father bearing the fame name, both gentlemen of high 
 character and pofition, had been familiar with and in charge 
 of the records of York County for a long period before. 109 
 The certificate of Judge Hammond, that the deed was found 
 on the ancient files, is itfelf almoft a refutation of the 
 hypothefis that it was a recent fabrication, furreptitioufly 
 depofited there. 
 
 The deed was fubjedted to the teffc of public fcrutiny 
 fhortly after its difcovery, in the trial of the great land-fuit 
 of Allen v. Waldron, in the Superior Court of New Hamp- 
 fliire. Allen, the plaintiff, had acquired the title of John 
 Mafon, the patentee, to the entire province of New Hamp- 
 fhire; and his fuit was a teft-cafe, brought againft Waldron, 
 one of the moft prominent citizens, to determine whether 
 Allen had the paramount right to the whole of that exten- 
 five and then valuable territory, or the occupants of the 
 foil were to be affured in their titles to the farms' which 
 they had in good faith reclaimed, inherited, or purchafed. 
 
 A 
 
 108 3 Belknap’s Hift. N. H. App’x 
 No. 1. 
 
 109 2 Williamfon’s Hift. Maine, 75. 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 81 
 
 A judgment for Allen would infure him opulence and 
 confequence, and he prepared for the ftruggle with the 
 diligence and care , which its importance demanded. His 
 title had been fubmitted to tliftinguifhed counfel in Eng¬ 
 land, and he retained the ableft lawyers in the new world 
 to condudl his fuit here. 110 He was further fortified by an 
 order from the Queen in Council, requiring the New 
 Hampfhire jury to return a fpecial verdidl in the caufe; 
 that is, not fimply a finding in favor of the plaintiff or 
 defendant, as the cafe might be, but a fiatement of all the 
 fadfs proved before them; from which the Englifh Court 
 were to render the final judgment. 111 It is evident, therefore, 
 that, as Allen had negledfed no preliminary preparations to 
 infure fuccefs, fo no ftone would be left unturned in his 
 behalf in the condudl of the trial. 
 
 The iffue had been fubmitted to a jury in the Inferior 
 Court, in April, 1707, and the verdidf had gone for the 
 defendant. Allen, the plaintiff, took an appeal to the Supe¬ 
 rior Court to be held in Auguffc; and, according to the 
 pradlice, delivered to the defendant, in July, his Reafons of 
 appeal, reduced to writing. To thefe the defendant fur- 
 niflied a written Reply. It does not appear when the 
 Reply was brought to the plaintiff’s notice; but, as the pur- 
 pofe of it was to apprife him of the grounds of the defence, 
 
 it 
 
 110 Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Sir Francis 111 2 New Hampfhire Provincial Pa- 
 Winnington, and Sir William Jones pers, 544. In that volume all the pa- 
 gave opinions in favor of Mafon’s title, pers relating to the fuit of Allen v. 
 through which Allen claimed ; and Waldron are given in extetifo , and the 
 James Menzies and John Valentine reader of this article can readily find 
 were his counfel at the final trial in among them the documents here men- 
 New Hampfhire. tioned, without further fpecial refer¬ 
 
 ence. 
 
 11 
 
82 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 it is to be prefumed it muff have been a reafonable time 
 before the trial. The Reply gave notice that the poffeffion 
 of the demanded premifes by the defendant’s father (under 
 whom the defendant claimed) was “grounded on a very 
 good deed . . . from the Indian fachems . . . bearing date 
 the 17th May, 1629.” 
 
 As this was the firffc allufion to the Wheelwright deed, in 
 a controverfy which had been ftoutly maintained for years, 
 it may well be fuppofed that Allen’s counfel would lofe no 
 time, after the notice, in feeking out and infpecting the 
 new piece of evidence to be ufed againft their client. It 
 was either in the poffeffion of the defendant, or on file in 
 the regiftry of deeds in York County, only a few miles 
 from Portfmouth, where the trial was to be had; and, in 
 either cafe, was to be feen on application. 
 
 When the final hearing came on, therefore, the plaintiff 
 undoubtedly knew all that he defired about the place of 
 depofit, the difcovery, and the appearance of the inftrument. 
 If there had been any thing deceptive in the handwriting of 
 either of the various parties to it, or fufpicious in any of the 
 circumftances connected with its production, it would beyond 
 queftion have been made the moft of in Court; for every 
 lawyer knows how detrimental to a caufe is the exhibition 
 of a document which may reafonably be fufpected of falfity. 
 But no exception appears to have been taken to the deed: 
 it was laid with the other evidence before the jury, and they 
 reaffirmed the verdict for the defendant. 
 
 Allen then claimed an appeal to the Queen in Council, 
 and the cafe was transferred to that tribunal. And it was at 
 this fiage of the proceedings, months after the trial in New 
 
 Hampfhire 
 
Wis it Spurious f 
 
 33 
 
 Hampfhire, that the genuinenefs of the deed was firft drawn 
 in queftion. George Vaughan, agent for Waldron the de¬ 
 fendant, wrote from London, probably about the commence¬ 
 ment of the year 1708, to Cotton Mather, to learn his 
 thoughts upon the queftion, “ How a date in the year 
 1629 could confift with the true time of Mr. Wheelwright’s 
 coming to America ? ” he having firft landed in Bofton , 
 with his family, in 1636. Mather’s reply was dated the 
 third of April, 1708, nearly eight months after the trial in 
 the Superior Court of New Hampfhire. 112 
 
 John Uflier, of New Hampfhire, in a letter to the Lords 
 Commiffioners of the Board of Trade in London, which 
 reached them the twenty-eighth of June, 1708, mentions 
 the trial of Allen v. Waldron, the production of the deed, 
 and adds: “ Upon inquiry, Mr. Wheelwright came into the 
 country many years after the date of faid deed ; ” and there¬ 
 upon expreffes his belief that the deed was falfe. 113 Uflier 
 was interefied with Allen in the matter, having a mortgage 
 of his New Hampfhire domain. 114 
 
 Now there is nothing unufual in the lofing party in a 
 fuit at law complaining that he was defeated by forgery or 
 perjury: it is fo common that no one attaches much impor¬ 
 tance to it, unlefs it is fubftantiated by fpecific allegations 
 and proof. In the prefent cafe, the charge refted upon a 
 fingle ground, — that the deed bore date before Wheel¬ 
 wright’s arrival in this country. Vaughan’s and U flier’s 
 
 letters 
 
 112 3 Belknap’s Hift. N. H. App’x. communication has the authority of the 
 
 No. 1. Rev. Alonzo H. Quint, D.D. 
 
 113 1 Hiftorical Magazine, 57. The 114 1 Belknap’s Hift. N. H. 310. 
 
The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 letters agree in this. No intimation was given that any 
 other caufe exifted for doubting its genuinenefs. 
 
 There is every reafon to believe that, if any fubftantial 
 objection to the deed could have been devifed, the Englifh 
 appellate tribunal would have fet afide the verdidl againft 
 Allen. On a former trial of the caufe, the provincial 
 court, following the example of Maffachufetts, had refufed 
 to allow Allen’s appeal to the king; an adt which was 
 highly refented in England. 115 At this time, frefh caufe for 
 indignation had been given to the Englifh authorities by 
 the audacious condudt of the juries, both in the Inferior 
 and Superior Court, in deliberately fetting at naught the 
 order of the Queen in Council to find a fpecial verdidl: in 
 the cafe. Add to this the fadt that the queftions at iffue 
 had long been a fource of trouble to the Englifh Court, 
 and it is apparent that, if the forgery of evidence had now 
 been added to the other mifdoings of the provincial land- 
 claimants, the appellate tribunal would have made quick 
 work of a judgment obtained by fuch means. But though 
 Allen lived eight years after that, yet the appeal never was 
 decided. His heirs at law were minors; and it is a moft 
 fignificant fadt, that after his death no fteps were taken in 
 their behalf to revive or profecute the litigation. More 
 convincing proof could not be defired that the theory of 
 the forgery of the deed was found wholly untenable and 
 bafelefs, than this protradted delay and final abandonment 
 of the claim. The hiftory of thefe proceedings, fhowing 
 the tefts of authenticity through which the Wheelwright 
 deed paffed when it was firft brought before the public 
 
 notice, 
 
 113 I Belknap’s Hift. N. H. 309. 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 85 
 
 notice, and the triumphant manner in which it withftood 
 all impeachment, furely affords no infecure bafis for main¬ 
 taining the credit of the inftrument in after time. 
 
 In 1713, the Wheelwright deed was regiffered in the 
 County of York, Maine; and in 1714, in New Hampfhire. 
 
 On the twenty-third, of August, 1719, Ephraim Roberts 
 and others, for themfelves “ and a fociety of about 180 
 perfons named in a lift for fettling a plantation,” purchafed 
 of Col. John Wheelwright, of Wells, Maine, a grandfon of 
 the Rev. John Wheelwright, and refiduary devifee of his 
 eftate under two fucceffive wills, a tradt of land, ten miles 
 fquare, lying between Haverhill, Maffachufetts, and Exeter 
 and Kingfton, New Hampfhire, of which Col. Wheelwright 
 gave them a conveyance founded on and reciting the Indian 
 deed of i629. 11G And afterwards, on the twentieth of Octo¬ 
 ber in the fame year, the Rev. James MacGregor and others, 
 for themfelves and one hundred more Scotch-Irifh fettlers, 
 purchafed from Col. Wheelwright a tradt of land of equal 
 extent, the fite of the original townfhip of Londonderry, 
 and took from him a fimilar conveyance thereof, referring 
 to the Wheelwright deed as the foundation of his title. 117 
 
 Thefe purchafes were both after the abandonment of 
 Allen’s fuit, were made by large companies, — the one com- 
 pofed of perfons refident in the vicinity while the litigation 
 refpedling the title was pending, and the other of fhrewd 
 and cautious immigrants, fome of them thoroughly edu¬ 
 cated, and all anxious to obtain a releafe unqueftionably 
 and honeftly derived from the Indian proprietors, of the 
 
 land 
 
 116 Regiftry of Deeds, Rockingham 117 Hift. of Londonderry, 321. 
 County, N. H. 
 
86 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 land on which they had fixed their home. The faffc that 
 two fuch diverfe bodies of men had confidence in the title 
 is of no fmall weight; but to the impartial inquirer the 
 circumfiance that Col. Wheelwright gave the fanffcion of 
 his deliberate a6t to their faith in the authenticity of the 
 Indian purchafe of 1629, fhould have a controlling fignifi- 
 cance. He was a man of intelligence, capacity, and high 
 refpedfability. 118 He was a Judge of the Court of Common 
 Pleas twenty-nine years; Councillor, twenty-five years; 
 Judge of the Probate Court, thirty years and until his death. 
 It cannot be fuppofed that he would himfelf meddle, or de¬ 
 lude purchafers, with a claim in which he had not entire con¬ 
 fidence. Nor is it juft to affume that he could not afcertain 
 whether his grandfather actually had the negotiation with 
 the Indians in 1629. The Rev. John Wheelwright had died 
 only twenty-eight years before the difcovery of the deed. 
 The date of the alleged tranfaftion was lefs than a century 
 off. Muff we fay that it is impoffible to afcertain whether 
 a conveyance only ninety years old, to an ancefior who 
 lived fifty years after it, is true, or a recent invention ? 
 Col. Wheelwright had the paper itfelf before him ; he had 
 the family traditions to guide him ; there were fcores of men 
 then living who knew his grandfather, and muff have heard 
 his accounts of the fettlement of Exeter; and if thefe and 
 all other fources of information had not combined to fatisfy 
 his mind that the purchafe of 1629 was a real tranfadlion, 
 his character and pofition forbid the belief that he would 
 have reprefented it fo to others, for any paltry gain he 
 could fecure thereby. Indeed, the deeds do not import that 
 
 he 
 
 118 2 Williamson’s Hift. Maine, 76. 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 87 
 
 he received any confideration whatever. Col. Wheelwright’s 
 conduct, therefore, twelve years after the inftrument was 
 exhumed from the ancient files of York, muft be taken to 
 be a moft authoritative indorfement of the genuinenefs of 
 the Wheelwright deed. 
 
 In 1728, nine years after the conveyances by Col. Wheel¬ 
 wright, the firft hiftorical fketch of New Hampfhire, of 
 which we have any knowledge, was compiled by the Rev. 
 Jabez Fitch, of Portfmouth. Born in 1672, and a graduate 
 of Harvard College, Mr. Fitch was ordained as a minifter 
 in Ipfwich, Maffachufetts, where he continued till 1725; 
 when he was fettled in Portfmouth, the place of his refi- 
 dence until his death in 1746. While an inhabitant of 
 Ipfwich, he could not have avoided hearing often of the 
 great New Hampfhire land-controverfy, and learning fome- 
 thing of its nature and merits. Arrived at Portfmouth, he, 
 of courfe, fought the information for compofmg his hiftory 
 from the moft truftworthy authorities. He records the 
 Wheelwright purchafe, as a faft admitting of no queftion, in 
 thefe terms: “ Some of the firft planters purchafed the 
 native right to the foil of the Sagamores (with the univerfal 
 confent of their fubjefts), for themfelves and any other 
 Englifh that fhould be difpofed to fettle here; for they 
 were then defirous that the Englifh fhould dwell among 
 them, by which means they hoped in time to be ftrength- 
 ened againft their enemies, the Tarrateens, who frequently 
 annoyed them.” 119 It will be feen that moft of thefe expref- 
 fions were copied from the Wheelwright deed. 
 
 In 
 
 119 See the original MS. of the hiftory, in the poffeftion of the Maffachufetts 
 Hiftorical Society. 
 
88 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 In 1739, eleven years after the compofition of Fitch’s 
 hiftorical effay, the controverfy refpedfing the boundary¬ 
 line between New Hampfhire and Maffachufetts was 
 brought to a hearing. The printed brief of the latter, ufed 
 • on that occafipn, is pofitive in the affertion of the Wheel¬ 
 wright purchafe in 1629, containing this language : “The 
 Indian princes, to ftrengthen themfelves againft their ene¬ 
 mies, the Tarrateens, by receiving the Englifli among them, 
 bargain and fell to John Wheelwright and others of the 
 Maffachufetts Bay, their heirs and affigns, all that part of 
 the main land between the rivers of Merrimac and Pifcata- 
 qua, thus defcribed,”— giving the defcription contained in 
 the Wheelwright deed. 120 
 
 In 1748, nine years fubfequently to this, Dr. William 
 Douglafs publifhed the firft volume of his Summary, .or 
 “ Hiftorical Account of the Britifh Settlements in America.” 
 He had lived in Bofton from 1718 to that time, — a period of 
 no lefs than thirty years. As a long refident in the adjacent 
 colony, and as a careful hiftorian, he could not have failed 
 to know that the title to the territory of New Hampfhire 
 had been in litigation, and what was the beft opinion of the 
 day in regard to the queftions arifmg therein. He relates 
 the Wheelwright purchafe as a fa6t admitting of no doubt, 
 in thefe words: “Anno 1629, the chiefs of the Indians of 
 Merrimac river fold to John Wheelwright and others of the 
 Maffachufetts Bay colony, all that land, beginning,” &c.,— 
 reciting the defcription given in the now controverted 
 deed. 121 Later editions of the work, up to 1760, contain 
 the fame ftatement, without alteration. 
 
 In 
 
 120 The New Hampfhire Hiftorical 121 i Douglafs’s Summary, 419. 
 Society have a copy of the brief. 
 
JVas it Spurious f 
 
 89 
 
 In 1784, twenty-four years afterward, the firft volume of 
 Belknap’s Hiftory of New Hampfhire appeared, which was 
 reprinted • in 1792 ; in both editions unrefervedly affirming 
 the truth of the Wheelwright purchafe. 122 Nor was this 
 done in ignorance that the charge of forgery had been railed 
 againft the deed, for Belknap in his third volume gives the 
 letter of Cotton Mather upon that very fubjeft. 
 
 In 1792-4, the two volumes of Ebenezer Hazard’s Hiftor- 
 ical Collections were iffued, in which the deed in queftion 
 was fet out as an undoubted document. 123 
 
 After this date, narratives of the early fettlement of this 
 region multiply, all Eating the purchafe of 1629 as an / 
 indubitable part of the hiftory of the time; no queftion 
 having been raifed thereon until the elaborate attack upon 
 its credibility made by the Hon. James Savage, about the 
 year 1820. 
 
 The Wheelwright deed, therefore, having fafely run the 
 gauntlet of a fharply contefted fuit at law, and emerged 
 unfcathed from a charge of forgery ftrenuoufly urged before 
 a jealous and critical tribunal; fupported by the opinions of 
 thofe upon the fpot, interefted and difinterefted, who were 
 belt qualified to pronounce upon it; adopted into the 
 annals of the times, and maintaining its place there unquef- 
 tioned for a century,—muff be taken to have thus become 
 part and parcel of our common hiftory, and, as fuch, to be 
 entitled to all the credence and prefumptions of truthfulnefs 
 which attach to time-honored relations in general. 
 
 It is obvious at a glance, that a narration which has been 
 received as correct by inquirers and writers for genera¬ 
 tions, 
 
 12:2 1 Belknap’s Hift. N. H. 10. 123 1 Hazard’s Collections, 271. 
 
oo The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 tions, does not ftand in refpect to credit exactly like a new, 
 untefted, and unverified affertion. It has certainly gained 
 fome currency, fome claim to be trufted as aftual fadt, by 
 the indorfement which years of univerfal and undoubting 
 acceptance have given it. Hiftory is originally made up 
 from the bed information attainable at the period when it 
 is written. Certain faffs are predicated from records fure 
 to be preferved, whofe accuracy cannot be controverted; 
 but by far the greater proportion are gathered from perifh- 
 able and difputable materials, like private writings, oral 
 communications, and current beliefs. While hiftory is new 
 * it is plaftic, and can be moulded into different form by 
 increafed and more accurate knowledge. But, as time goes 
 on, its confiftency becomes more firm. The mind is natu¬ 
 rally impreffed with the idea, that flatements which bear the 
 ordeal of years of inquiry and new difcoveries, are likely to 
 be correft. The great bulk of the materials of hiftory go 
 gradually to decay. They have done their work in fhaping 
 and fuftaining the new-made chronicles of their times; and 
 when they perifli, the chronicles have outgrown the need of 
 their fupport. Hiftory, when old, takes the place of the 
 evidence on which it was founded, and proves itfelf. 
 
 It is not too much to claim, then, that a ftatement which 
 has maintained its hold upon the belief of a century, 
 through all publifhed accounts, muft be regarded as prima 
 facie true, and only to be difproved by evidence of the 
 moft cogent character. The burden of proof is upon thofe 
 who would impeach it. If they fail to demonftrate that the 
 received ftatement is falfe, their impeachment falls; the 
 preemptions in favor of the ftatement prevail, and it muft 
 
 be 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 9 1 
 
 be taken as corredt. Any other rule than this would put 
 our hiftory on a par with old-wives’ tales ; and we fhould 
 hold our moft cherifhed beliefs at the mercy of the firft 
 ingenious innovator who could weave a plaufible hypothecs 
 for their annihilation. I rejoice in the confidence that the 
 invaluable leffons of the paft are not liable to be unfettled 
 by any thing fhort of abfolutely convincing evidence. 
 
 And if fuch is the rule of reafon and juftice in ordinary 
 cafes, how much more propriety is there in its enforcement 
 where the denier of a hiftorical ftatement can only make 
 out his cafe by proving the commiffion of a flagrant crime ? 
 The law of evidence in our courts of juftice provides that a 
 criminal offence is provable only by teftimony which fatif- 
 fies the mind beyond all reafonable doubt. And furely no 
 weaker evidence fhould fuffice to accomplifh the double 
 refult of deftroying our faith in a long-accepted hiftorical 
 faCt, and of convincing us of the truth of a grofs criminal 
 charge. The authenticity of the Wheelwright deed cannot 
 be impeached without eftablifhing a moft improbable cafe 
 of wicked forgery. 
 
 In this connection, it is important to note the extreme 
 paucity of information in our poffeffion refpedting the 
 early affairs of New Hampfhire. It may be almoft faid 
 that no records or documents of a date prior to 1642, nine¬ 
 teen years after Thompfon and the Hiltons founded the 
 fettlement, exift, to throw light upon that portion of her 
 hiftory. Confequently, it would be in the higheft degree 
 unfafe to infer that an occurrence took place at that period 
 becaufe there is now no evidence to contradict it, or that an 
 occurrence did not take place becaufe there is now no evi¬ 
 dence 
 
92 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 dence to confirm it. No conclufions are fairly to be drawn 
 from want of evidence, in fuch cafes. 
 
 Before attempting to meafure the force of the confidera- 
 tions which have been arrayed againft the reality of the 
 Wheelwright purchafe, it is ufeful to look for a moment at 
 the probabilities of the cafe, as they prefent themfelves 
 upon uncontefted contemporary fadls. 
 
 The Rev. John Wheelwright, in 1629, was about thirty- 
 feven years of age, and had been a clergyman of the 
 Englifh Church probably for ten or twelve years, the laft 
 fix of which he was in charge of the parifh of Bilfby, near 
 the town of Alford, in Lincolnfhire, England. He was a 
 man of leading character, of advanced opinions, and of bold 
 fpeech; one who in thofe times might well look forward to 
 being filenced, any day, for non-conformity, — as he was, in 
 fadl, not long after that date. What is more natural than 
 that his thoughts fhould then be turned towards New 
 England, already noted as a harbor for the oppreffed, as a 
 place of refuge for himfelf, fhould he be forbidden to exer- 
 cife his clerical functions in his native land ? 
 
 He quitted his parochial charge about the year 1632 ; but 
 lived in the fame vicinity moft of the time until 1636, when 
 he came over with his family to the new world. In the 
 autumn of 1637 he was banifhed from Maffachufetts, and 
 proceeded to Exeter, in New Hampfhire; where, by the 
 fourth of July, 1639, he was furrounded by at leaf! fix men, 
 and perhaps more, who had been his friends and parifhioners 
 in England; fome, if not all of them, heads of families. 124 
 
 Now, 
 
 124 Auguftine Storre, William Went- Rifhworth, Thomas Levitt, Chriftopher 
 worth, Samuel Hutchinfon, Edward Lawfon, and Chriftopher IJelme pro¬ 
 bably 
 
93 
 
 Was it Spurious t 
 
 Now, it is only when we confider what a momentous ftep it 
 was in that age to tranfplant one’s family and home from 
 the midft of friends and comforts in the old country, to the 
 wildernefs and privations of the new, that we can realize 
 how remarkable was the occurrence of fo confiderable a 
 proportion of the better clafs of the inhabitants of the petty 
 hamlet of Bilfby quitting the abode of their fathers, to 
 eftablifh themfelves, not in the more inviting regions of 
 America, but in a new, unknown, inland locality, where 
 were all the hardfhips and dangers, with none of the allevia¬ 
 tions, of . frontier life. 
 
 In feeking for a key to conduct fo exceptional, the mind 
 naturally fuggefts that it muft have been the refult of fome 
 preconcerted plan or agreement. Wheelwright had not 
 been the paftor of the immigrants from Bilfby for fome half- 
 a-dozen years before the fettlement at Exeter. It was not 
 the cafe, therefore,- of attached friends accompanying their 
 perfecuted minifter to the place of his exile. Moft of them 
 came over independently of Wheelwright, and probably 
 after he went to make Exeter his home. Now, if Wheel¬ 
 wright, while living among them, had formed with thefe 
 parifhioners a project for emigrating in a body to America, 
 and efpecially if they had gone fo far as to fecure a fite for 
 a fettlement here, then this myfterious change of abode of 
 fo many of the inhabitants of Bilfby to a remote and fe- 
 cluded fpot would be naturally and completely accounted 
 for; and it is difficult to fee that it could be, on any other 
 hypothefis, fo well. 
 
 Wheelwright 
 
 bably all came within thefe defigna- Regijler , 315, 22 lb. 139, and 23 lb. 
 * tions. — See 21 N. E. Hijl. and Gen. 185. 
 
94 The W^heelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 Wheelwright was not the man to lead into difficulties 
 
 and fufferings, blindfold, the devoted relatives and friends, 
 
 who were willing on his account to root up old affocia- 
 
 tions and attachments. His confcientious and refolute 
 
 • 1 9 
 
 heart would regard a voyage acrofs the ocean as nothing, 
 
 if it would enable him to fmooth the way for his followers, 
 
 and prepare a fecure and independent retreat for them in 
 
 advance. 
 
 Again, it has been a fource of wonder that Wheelwright, 
 when banifhed from Maffachufetts, did not go to Rhode 
 Ifland, where he was fure to find, not only toleration, but 
 relatives and fympathizing friends. Callender fays that 
 the Puritans there “ had defired and depended on ” his 
 miniftrations. 125 If, however, he had, years before, fixed on 
 the location in New Hampfhire for his future home, eftab- 
 lifhed an underfianding with the natives to that effeft, and 
 arranged with his Englifh friends for a fettlement there, 
 all wonder ceafes that he did not adopt what would have 
 otherwife Teemed the natural courfe of removing to the 
 genial and fertile ffiores of Narraganfet. 
 
 Another circumftance merits notice, in this connexion. 
 
 It was the duty of Wheelwright, as Vicar of Bilfby, to 
 make up annually, on the twenty-fifth of March, a tran- 
 fcript of the parifh-regifter for the pafi; year, and to depofit 
 it in the regifiry of the Bifhop of Lincoln. If Wheel¬ 
 wright had been at his poft in England on the twenty-fifth 
 of March, 1629, he would have prepared a tranfcript for 
 the year 1628-9. But no fuch paper is to be found. It 
 
 is 
 
 123 Callender’s Hiftorical Difcourfe, Eliot’s Biographical Dictionary, article . 
 in 4 Collections R. I. Hitt. Soc. 116; “Wheelwright.” 
 
Was it Spurious f 95 
 
 is a fair inference that he was then abfent; and, if fo, 
 where was he, unlefs on his way to America ? It may be 
 faid, however, that a tranfcript may have been made, and, 
 during the lapfe of more than two centuries, loft. This 
 is quite poftible, though thofe for the years 1628 and 1631 
 are preferved, and in their proper place. 126 But when the 
 queftion was raifed in 1708 before the Privy Council, in 
 Allen’s appeal, whether Wheelwright was in America in 
 1629, and it was deemed neceffary to fend to this country 
 for information on the point, there can be no doubt that 
 inquiry was inftituted on the fame fubjedt in England. As 
 a matter of courfe, the regiftry of the Bifhop of Lincoln 
 would be confulted. If a copy of the tranfcript had then 
 been found, or any other document to fhow that Wheel¬ 
 wright could not have vifited New England in 1629, Allen 
 would have difplayed it in triumph, and the Court would 
 certainly have granted an immediate order for a new trial 
 of his caufe, accompanied with directions to the Queen’s 
 attorney-general here to profecute for forgery all parties 
 concerned in the uttering of the Wheelwright deed. The 
 fa6t that Allen, on the contrary, was fuffered to languifh for 
 the remainder of his life in hope deferred, indicates that no 
 document under the fignature of Wheelwright, fhowing that 
 he could not have vifited the new world in the fpring of 
 1629, was extant one hundred and fixty-feven years ago. 
 And this greatly ftrengthens the probability that no tran¬ 
 fcript was ever made, and that Wheelwright was really 
 abfent at the time in queftion. 
 
 Thefe feveral circumftances, though each in itfelf of 
 
 flight 
 
 126 22 N. E. Hift., and Gen. Regifter, 350. 
 
0 
 
 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 flight weight, yet all concurrently point in one direction, — 
 to the probability that Wheelwright did leave his people in 
 England in the Ipring of 1629, in purfuance of a fcheme 
 for a future joint emigration to America, and fecured a 
 place for their reception at the falls of the Squamfcot, in 
 New Hampfhire. Such a tranfadtion, of courfe, could be 
 nothing but the purchafe of 1629. 
 
 Having thus feen the claims to credibility which the 
 Wheelwright deed poffeffes, from probabilities fupported by 
 indifputable fadts, and as an event fully and long embodied 
 in hiflory; and having confldered the kind and amount of 
 evidence fairly required to repel the prefumptions in favor 
 of its authenticity and before it can be fuccefsfully im¬ 
 peached,— we are now prepared to examine the arguments 
 which have been urged to prove it to be fpurious. As a 
 matter of convenience, the points will be taken up fo as to 
 render the pofltions here affumed most intelligible, without 
 regard to the order which other writers have adopted. 
 
 I. It is alleged, in the firft place, that neither of the two 
 perfons whofe names are fubfcribed as attefling witneffes to 
 the Wheelwright deed were in this country on the day of its 
 date, the feventeenth of May, 1629. 127 It is obvious that 
 this objedtion, if fuftained, is fatal; and there is no need of 
 any further argument to nail the deed, like bad money, to 
 the counter. And it argues a want of perfedt confidence 
 in the truth of the affertioh, on the part of the affailants of 
 the deed, that they do not reft their cafe on that alone, 
 inftead of raifing numerous other iffues, not one of which, if 
 adtually made out in their favor, would be equally decifive. 
 
 The 
 
 127 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 505, 6. 
 
97 
 
 Was it Spurious f 
 
 The names of the atteffing witneffes are John Oldham 
 and Samuel Sharp. There were, certainly, two perfons 
 bearing thofe names in Maffachufetts after the time in 
 queftion, and one of them had been in this country before. 
 
 i. John Oldham firft came out to Plymouth, in America, 
 in 1623. Two years afterward, he was driven from that col¬ 
 on}/, and lived in Nantafket; but was again reftored to favor, 
 and in 1628 was fent to England as a witnefs againft Morton, 
 of Merrymount. All authorities agree that he was a man 
 of enterprife, and well acquainted with the Indian trade. 
 He had become poffeffed of a grant from John Gorges, 
 under the patent iffued to his brother Robert in 1622, of 
 lands lying on the Maffachufetts Bay; and while in England 
 in 1628-9 endeavored, without succefs, to make fome 
 arrangement with the Maffachufetts Company for his occu¬ 
 pation and proprietorfhip of the fame. 
 
 Nothing further is heard of Oldham in Maffachufetts 
 until 1631, when he was admitted freeman. Where was 
 he, and what was he doing in the mean time? It is argued 
 that he was in England till the eleventh of May, 1629, 
 when it would be too late for him to reach this country in 
 time to witnefs the Wheelwright deed. The firft evidence 
 adduced to fubftantiate this pofition is drawn from the rec¬ 
 ords of the Maffachufetts Company, then kept in England. 
 Under date of the feconcl of March, 1629, they contain this 
 entry: “ Towching Jn° Oldam, the gouer r was ordered to 
 Conferr wth him vppon aney Indifferent Courfe that might 
 not bee preiudiciall to the Comp.” Under date of the fifth 
 of March, the following: “ A newe prpoficon beeinge made 
 in the behalfe of mi* Oldum to bee Intertayned [by] this 
 
 Comp: 
 
 13 
 
98 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 Comp: It was deferred to furder confideracon.” And on 
 the tenth of March, “ Cap ten Ven, m r Eaton, m r Samuell 
 Vaffall, & m" Nowel, & m* Whetcombe, or an[y] three [of] 
 them are Intreated once more to conferr wth ml Jn.° 
 Ouldam, [to fee what] Comodacon may bee made twixt the 
 Comp. & him, y t [their differences may be C]omodated.” 128 
 
 Up to this date, it is immaterial to our inquiry where 
 Oldham was. Between the tenth of March and the feven- 
 teenth of May, there was abundant time for him to crofs 
 the Atlantic and repair to the falls of the Squamfcot. 
 
 So far as can be learned from the records, the committee 
 that had been “ intreated ” to confer with Oldham never 
 fucceeded in doing fo. It was not becaufe the matter was 
 confidered of trifling confequence, for his claim was evi¬ 
 dently deemed by the Company an important one, and this 
 was a final attempt to adjufi: it with him. There was the 
 firongeft reafon to expedl, therefore, that the committee 
 would feek him out, if he was to be found in the country. 
 The fact that they did nothing affords a prefumption, at 
 leaft, that he was not where he could be communicated 
 with. The committee made no report. 
 
 But under date of the eleventh of May, 1629, this 
 record appears: “ This day m T . Ouldum propounded vnto 
 ml White that he would have his patten examined, and its 
 agred by the Courte not to haue any treatye with him 
 about it, by refone its thought he doth it not out of loue, 
 but out of fome fynifier refpedt.” Does this entry prove 
 that Oldham was then in England ? 
 
 White 
 
 128 The Company’s Records, in 3 Archaeologia Americana, 14, 15, 22. 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 99 
 
 White was not prefent at the meeting of the Company . 129 
 Confequently Oldham’s “ propounding ” of the examination 
 of his patent could not have occurred at the meeting. White 
 mud have apprifed the Company of the propofal of Old¬ 
 ham, by letter or meffage. Oldham, of courfe, did not 
 attend the meeting, or his proportion would not have been 
 made to White, the attorney, but to the Governor and 
 Company, the parties there prefent, who were to decide 
 upon it. And if Oldham had been in or about London at 
 the time, with an overture to prefent for the Company’s 
 confideration, White, indead of receiving it himfelf, would 
 undoubtedly have directed him to take it in perfon to the 
 Company, at their meeting. 
 
 It feems clear, therefore, neither White nor Oldham 
 being prefent, that the fecretary mud have made up his 
 record, in regard to Oldham’s proffer, from fome verbal or 
 written communication from White. The expredion “ this 
 day,” in the record, then, mud be condrued to refer to the 
 time when the matter was brought before the Company, 
 and not as fixing the time when Oldham actually made the 
 propofal to White. As we have feen, Oldham was, probably, 
 not in London at the time, and, if not, there is no evidence 
 that he was in England. On the quedion, when, where, or 
 how he propounded to White the examination of his 
 patent, we are entirely in the dark. It may have been 
 
 orally 
 
 120 Company’s Records, in 3 Arch. MS. for publication in the Arch. Am- 
 Americana, 31. It is true that in the ericana, it was feen that what had 
 verlion of the Records in Young’s been before mifread White, was in 
 Chronicles of Maffachufetts, 69, White reality the latter part of the name of 
 is reprefented as at the meeting on Foxcrofte, the earlier letters having 
 the eleventh of May. But, upon the been torn away or become illegible, 
 more careful infpedlion of the original 
 
ioo The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 orally or in writing, in perfon or through an agent. 
 It may have been fent from Land’s End or Lincolnfhire, 
 and have borne date any day after his former communica¬ 
 tion of the fifth of March. 
 
 So much for the records of the Maffachufetts Company. 
 They not only do not fliow that Oldham was in England 
 within the two months prior to the execution of the Wheel¬ 
 wright deed; but they render it probable, to fay the lead, 
 from the failure of the committee of the tenth of March to 
 confer with him, that he had left the kingdom, at or foon 
 after the date of their appointment. 
 
 The only other evidence relied on' by thofe who would 
 invalidate the deed, to prove an alibi for Oldham, is con¬ 
 tained in the letter of the Governor and Company of the 
 Maffachufetts Bay to John Endicott, dated the feventeenth of 
 April, 1629. This is the firft paffage: “fynding him (Old¬ 
 ham) a man altogeather vnfitt for vs to deale with, wee haue 
 at laft left him to his owne way: And, as wee are informed, 
 hee, wth fome others, are prvyding a veffell, and is mynded 
 as foone as hee can difpatch, to come for New England, 
 prtending to fettle himfelfe, in Mattachufetts Bay, clayming 
 a Tytle,” &c. 130 The argument is that this datement, in a 
 letter bearing date jud a month before the Wheelwright 
 deed, proves that Oldham was then in England, with too 
 little time to allow him to crofs the ocean to witnefs the 
 execution of the indrument. 
 
 But we mud recoiled! that this is a very long, general 
 letter of indrudlions, plainly not written at a fitting, but 
 
 made 
 
 130 Letter, in 3 Arch. Americana, 82. 
 
IOI 
 
 Was it Spurious f 
 
 made up from time to time, as events occurred, or fubjedfs 
 fuggefted themfelves. It contains the intelligence of weeks, 
 if not of months. The committee to write letters was 
 appointed the fixth of April, and they evidently fil'd: pre¬ 
 pared an account of all that had tranfpired, or had been 
 reported, up to that time, and added other matters as they 
 arofe ; dating the whole, as is ufual with foreign letters of 
 accretion, on the day when it was to be forwarded. The 
 letter begins with an acknowledgment of the receipt of a 
 communication of the prior September; then follows an 
 account of obtaining the King’s patent for the incorpora¬ 
 tion of the Company. That patent was formally completed 
 on the fourth of March, 1629, more than a month before 
 the date of the letter. The ftatement concerning Oldham 
 is in the early part of the paper, and undoubtedly comprifed 
 the latefi information which the Company then had in 
 regard to his movements and defigns. 
 
 It is altogether probable that the operations of Oldham 
 were not carried on at London, but in fome part of the 
 kingdom not readily acceffible from the capital. Otherwife 
 the Company would have been able to obtain more definite 
 knowledge refpedfing him. They believed that the veffel 
 which he was fitting out with defpatch was defigned for 
 the Maffachufetts Bay; but the event proved that they were 
 mifinformed on that point, for Oldham did not make his 
 voyage thither. Thofe were days of fmall inland communi¬ 
 cation, when the doings of a perfon in a diftant part of the 
 kingdom were as little likely to be known as if he were be¬ 
 yond fea. Oldham might almoft have built his veffel and fet 
 fail in her, at fome remote point on the coafb, before the 
 
 report 
 
102 The IVheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 report that her keel was laid would have reached the Com¬ 
 pany at London. It would be a wonder if they had kept 
 informed, within a month, of his movements. The letter of 
 the Governor and Company to Endicott, therefore, cannot 
 be relied upon to prove where Oldham was at the time of 
 its date, or probably for weeks before. 
 
 There is a fecond poftfcript to this letter, which has been 
 thought to indicate Oldham’s continued prefence in Eng¬ 
 land ; but it is fo clearly in the pad tenfe that it is remark¬ 
 able that any perfon could have drawn fuch an inference 
 from it. 131 
 
 Thefe are all the arguments which have been adduced in 
 fupport of the pretence that Oldham could not have been 
 in New England, to fet his hand to the Wheelwright deed, 
 on the feventeenth of May, 1629. It is fubmitted that they 
 come entirely fhort of their purpofe ; nay, that they even 
 contain an implication in the oppofite direction. They 
 fhow that Oldham was making ready to leave England for 
 the new world. They do not fix any date; but circum- 
 ftances render it probable that it may have been in the very 
 early fpring. From this evidence alone, we fliould perhaps 
 be juftified in the inference that he did vifit thefe fhores 
 before the letter to Endicott arrived. 
 
 But there is very diredl proof of the fa6l from another 
 fource. It is derived from the grant from the Council of 
 Plymouth, to Richard Vines and Oldham, of the territory 
 of what is now Biddeford in Maine, dated the twelfth of 
 February, 1630. The infirument recites that Oldham had 
 
 “ already 
 
 131 3 Arch. Americana, 95. 
 
103 
 
 IVas it Spurious f 
 
 “ already at his own proper coft and charges tranfported (to 
 New England) and planted there divers perfons, and hath 
 for the effecting that fo good a work, undergone great labor 
 and danger.” 132 Now there are contemporaneous accounts 
 of Oldham fufficient to make it reafonably certain that he 
 had not, before 1629, done any colonizing in New England, 
 beyond fetching out his own wife and children in 1623, 
 which could hardly have been confidered a fufficient founda¬ 
 tion for a grant of land in 1630; confequently the inference 
 is almoft irrefffiible, that the “ divers perfons whom he had 
 tranfported and planted ” here muffc have been brought over 
 in the feafon of 1629. So, too, the “great labor and 
 danger ” which Oldham is faid to have undergone in 
 effecting the good work of colonization can refer to none 
 of his known antecedents prior to 1629, and are only to be 
 explained as relating to the fatigues and perils of a voyage 
 in that year. 
 
 That voyage, then, was made to New England, but not 
 to Maffachufetts. Whither was it? The probabilities all 
 point to the mouth of the Saco; for it is only natural that 
 he ffiould have planted his colonifts on the land where he 
 intended to take his grant. Who were the “ fome others ” 
 concerned with Oldham in fitting out the veffel for the 
 voyage? Richard Vines, probably, was one. Was John 
 Wheelwright another? 
 
 One of the queftions triumphantly put by thofe who 
 deny the reality of the Wheelwright purchafe is, How 
 could Wheelwright reach this country in 1629, and without 
 
 his 
 
 132 Folfom’s Hift. Saco and Biddeford, 318. 
 
104 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629 ; 
 
 his arrival being known in Maffachufetts ? Here is a 
 fimple folution of the problem : Wheelwright might have 
 come with Oldham, diredlly to the Saco, and, without 
 vifiting Maffachufetts at all, have returned with him, or in 
 fome other veffel from an eaftern port, the fame feafon. 
 Oldham, no doubt, failed for England again in time to take 
 out his grant, — the twelfth of February, 1630. Thus, there 
 would be nothing extraordinary in Wheelwrights coming 
 to New England being entirely unknown in Maffachufetts. 
 
 Oldham, by reafon of his difficulties with the people of 
 the Maffachufetts Bay, would have been only too ready to 
 aid any one in preparing for a fettlement in their vicinity 
 which might prove a rival or a trouble to them. And by 
 his acquaintance with the country, and efpecially with the 
 habits of the natives, he would be the very man to arrange 
 for the meeting of the fagamores with the Englifh, to 
 conclude the Wheelwright purchafe, at the falls of the 
 Squamfcot. 
 
 2. Samuel Sharp is the name of the other witnefs of the 
 execution of the Wheelwright deed. It has been affumed 
 by thofe who call the deed in queftion, that this was the 
 Samuel Sharp who was appointed an affiflant in the Maffa¬ 
 chufetts Bay Company in 1629. That gentleman was 
 intruded by the Company with a letter and other articles 
 to be delivered to Endicott, and was expedled to fail for 
 New England in the “George,” which did not arrive in 
 Salem until the twenty-third of June, 1629. It is worthy 
 of remark, that there is no abfolute proof that he did fail in 
 that veffel. It is quite among the poffibilities, though it 
 muff be admitted to be improbable, that he changed his 
 
 purpofe, 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 105 
 
 purpofe, and found fome more fpeedy method of reaching 
 our fhores. 
 
 But there is nothing but identity of name on which to 
 bafe the affumption that this was the fame perfon whofe 
 atteftation appears upon the Wheelwright deed. There 
 may well enough have been another Samuel Sharp on the 
 Pafcataqua at that time. I am aware that this fuggeftion 
 has been treated with fcornful incredulity. It has been 
 inquired how many myriads of chances there were againft 
 fuch a concurrence; and the attempt has been made to 
 overwhelm the hypothecs by a mathematical demonftra- 
 tion. 133 But the common-fenfe of mankind is not to be ob- 
 fcured by the fallacious ufe of fuch arguments. Whatever the 
 antecedent probabilities againft fuch coincidences, the occur¬ 
 rence of the moft unlikely double, and even triple, events 
 is not fo uncommon as to ftartle us out of our propriety. 
 Take an inftance which has come under my obfervation 
 while inveftigating this very fubjedt. The Maffachufetts 
 Company contained one hundred and eleven members. 
 The chances are almoft too great for computation that, of the 
 millions of inhabitants of Great Britain, two perfons bearing 
 the fame name would not be found among that fmall number. 
 Yet that Company actually did contain two John Whites: 
 one the minifter, and author of the Planter’s Plea; and the 
 other the counfellor, who is faid to have been inftrumental 
 in fhaping the royal charter. But this is not all: at lead 
 one, and perhaps two, other men of the name of John 
 White are alluded to in the records of the Company as in 
 
 fome 
 
 133 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 507. 
 
 14 
 
io6 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 fome way connected with it, or engaged in its fervice. 134 
 When we confider that the chances againffc each recun 
 rence of the fame name increafe in a geometrical ratio, 
 we realize how eafy it is to argue, mathematically, that 
 thefe feveral coincidences could not be expedled to happen. 
 And yet the fa6t is that they did happen; and it only 
 impreffes the mind as curious, not marvellous. Wherever 
 the fallacy may be in applying the dodtrine of antecedent 
 probabilities to thefe cafes, I feel affured that the ftatement, 
 that, among the feveral hundreds of Englifh in New Eng¬ 
 land in May, 1629, there may have been two named 
 Samuel Sharp, outrages no reafonable man’s powers of 
 belief, but would be generally accepted as no very wonder¬ 
 ful circumftance. 
 
 It would not be ftrange if we had no knowledge of the 
 New Hampfhire Samuel Sharp, other than that he wit- 
 neffed the Wheelwright deed. From the apportionment of 
 the expenfes of fuppreffmg Morton of Merrymount, and fend¬ 
 ing him to England, among the feveral towns and plantations 
 according to numbers and ability, the population immedi¬ 
 ately on the Pafcataqua, in 1628, may be not unreafonably 
 eftimated at not far from three hundred fouls; and Edward 
 Hilton, at Squamfcot, may be taken to have employed about 
 one hundred more. 135 Now fo completely has all knowledge 
 
 refpedling 
 
 134 3 Archaeologia Americana, cvi. hundred, and that of Salem about two 
 A John White, of Virginia, is men- hundred. — i Savage’s Wnithrop , 2d 
 tioned, in addition to all the others. ed. 508. According to the fame ratio, 
 
 135 The fums apportioned to the va- the numbers at Pafcataqua and at Hil- 
 rious fettlements are given in 3 Mafs. ton’s plantation fhould be not lefs than 
 Hilt. Society’s Collections, 63. Ply- thofe fuggefted in the text. Of courfe 
 mouth was affeffed £2 10s.; Naumkeak no accurate refults can be expeCted 
 (Salem), £\ 10s. ; Pafcataquack, £2 from this method of computation, but 
 10s. ; Edward Hilton, £1. The popu- the exadt numbers are not effential to 
 lation of Plymouth was then near three the argument. 
 
// z as it Spurious t 
 
 107 
 
 refpedling thefe ancient inhabitants been obliterated, that 
 we have never even heard the names of nine out of ten of 
 them all. 
 
 And yet, by a fingular accident, one of the names 
 which has furvived is that of Samuel Sharp. On the 
 feventh of July, 1631, Samuel Sharp was a witnefs of the 
 livery of feizin of the land included in the Squamfcot 
 patent, to Edward Hilton; an occurrence which happened 
 within half-a-dozen miles from the place of the execution 
 of the Wheelwright deed, and two years later. 136 It furely 
 requires fome boldnefs, in the face of this evidence, to deny 
 that among Hilton’s men, or elfewhere upon the Pafcat- 
 aqua, there was' a fecond Samuel Sharp, in fpite of the 
 dodlrine of chances. 
 
 Of courfe, it is eafy to reply that it might be the Maffa- 
 chufetts Samuel Sharp who witneffed the Squamfcot patent. 
 But I am not aware of a particle of ground for affuming 
 that the Maffachufetts Affiftant made a journey into the 
 wilds of New Hampfhire to accomplifli fo trifling a for¬ 
 mality; and it will be time enough to deal with that 
 fuggeftion, when it is fupported by fome faint fhadow of 
 evidence. 
 
 In view of the confiderations here advanced, is it too 
 much to- fay, that this moffc formidable argument againft 
 the Wheelwright deed,— that its witneffes were not in the 
 country at the time of its date, — is not fuftained by proof? 
 
 II. A fecond objedlion to the genuinenefs of the Wheel¬ 
 wright deed, on which great ftrefs has been laid, is that it 
 
 was 
 
 136 24 N. E. Hift. and Gen. Regifter, 264. 
 
io8 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 was dated on Sunday. It is urged that no minifter of the 
 gofpel would have been engaged in the fecular bufinefs of 
 purchafing land on that day. 137 
 
 But, not to jump too haftily at conclufions, let us fee 
 precifely what the tranfadtion was. It was not a mere 
 commercial affair; it was no bargain for real eftate, in 
 the ordinary fenfe of the term, for as we fliall fee, later 
 on, the Indians had no power to convey a title to land. 
 
 It amounted fimply to a treaty with them for their 
 amity and good-will; for their permiffion that Wheelwright, 
 and fuch Englifh colonifts as he might approve, fhould 
 occupy the foil without moleftation or hindrance on their 
 part. 13S In another afpedt, it was the fecuring of an afylum 
 for men fleeing from perfecution, for confcience’ fake. Is 
 there any thing in the nature of the negotiation, in either 
 view, that fhould render it improper to be performed on 
 Sunday, even by the molt fcrupulous Chriftian ? And if, 
 as is no unnatural fuppofition, the fagamores and their 
 tribefmen had affembled on that day, ready to complete the 
 bufmefs, and unable to appreciate any reafons for deferring 
 it till the morrow, liable to change their humor and difap- 
 pear before another funrife, — would it be unlikely that even 
 fo punctilious a man as Wheelwright fhould look upon 
 the work as one of mercy and neceffity alike, fo as to waive . 
 all fcruples to its accomplifhment on the Lord’s Day ? 
 
 The rulers of the Maffachufetts Bay, than whom none 
 were more confcientious refpedfers of the firft day of the 
 week, thought it no defecration of the day to fend out a 
 
 party 
 
 137 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 511. 
 
 13S See the provifions of the deed, infra. 
 
JVis it Spurious ? 
 
 109 
 
 party of foldiers on Sunday to difarm the chieftain, Paffa- 
 conaway, in 1642, on the mere apprehenfion of a com¬ 
 bination of the Indians againft them; though no hoftilities 
 had yet been committed. 139 
 
 But to affert that the Wheelwright deed “ bore date on 
 Sunday ” is to convey an erroneous impreffion. The day 
 of the week is not named in the date. The day of the 
 month alone is mentioned, — the feventeenth of May. It is 
 true that the feventeenth of May did fall on Sunday; but 
 if the inftrument had fpecified “ Sunday,” or “ the firft day 
 of the week,” there would have been no room for miftake; 
 whereas, it being fimply “ the feventeenth of May,” an error 
 of a unit on either fide would bring it on a week day. 
 Nothing is eafier or more common than fuch a miftake. 
 We are continually mifdating our letters, one, two, or three 
 days, while we have the daily papers lying on our table, and 
 the calendar pofted up in the defks at which we write. 
 How much more liable to fuch an overfight would one 
 have been two centuries and a half ago, in the depth of the 
 wildernefs where all times were alike, and there was no 
 almanac within a day’s journey! 
 
 It curioufly happens that an error of exactly the fame 
 fort is obfervable in a document produced in the difcuffion 
 . of this fubjedt as evidence to impeach the deed. The 
 paper contains the depofitions of Wheelwright, Edward 
 Colcord, and Samuel Dudley. That of Wheelwright hands 
 firft, and is dated the fifteenth of April, 1668. Thofe of 
 Colcord and Dudley are fubfequent to Wheelwright’s, refer 
 
 to 
 
 139 2 Savage’s Winthrop, *79. 
 
II6 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 to it, and corroborate it; but they are fworn to on the 
 fourteenth of April, — that is, on the day before the depofi- 
 tion of Wheelwright, to which they allude , appears to have 
 been written. 140 Here, on their face, the dates are incon¬ 
 tinent; and one of them muft be falfe. Yet no fair-minded 
 inveftigator would infill that this was evidence of fraud and 
 forgery. The apparent contradiction is fufceptible of expla¬ 
 nation upon the obvious hypothecs of a miffake of the day 
 of the month on the part of Wheelwright, or of the clerk 
 who made the jurat. Any one who would refufe to accept 
 this method of reconciling the conflicting dates, we fhould 
 be apt to fufpeCt of obtufenefs or prejudice. Yet the 
 inconfiftency in the date of the Wheelwright deed is equally 
 eafy of explanation, in exaCtly the fame way; and ftill we 
 are afked to affume that it could not have been a miftake, 
 but muft neceffarily be proof of forgery. 
 
 It appears to me, that an importance has been given 
 to this exception, in every point of view, which does not 
 properly belong to it. 
 
 III. A third point, much infilled on as detracting from 
 the credibility of the Wheelwright purchafe of 1629, is the 
 allegation that it was never heard of until 1707, feventy- 
 eight years after its occurrence. 141 
 
 If this were true, there is a very good and obvious reafon 
 for it. When Wheelwright fet up his abode in Exeter, in 
 1638, he took two other conveyances from the Indians, 
 covering all the land he defired, and, indeed, nearly the 
 
 whole 
 
 140 Belknap’s Hift. N. H. (Farmer’s Dr. Bouton has laid peculiar ftrefs 
 
 ed.) 7, note. upon this exception. 
 
 141 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 502. 
 
Was it Spuriousf 
 
 111 
 
 whole of the territory embraced in the purchafe of 1629; 
 excepting only a belt on the weffc fide, and the fites of the 
 Pafcataqua fettlements on the north-eafi. 
 
 Why he wanted a new conveyance, we may eafily con¬ 
 ceive. The firffc deed was burdened with ftipulations which 
 experience had no doubt fhown to be needlefs and trouble- 
 fome. It was far eafier to obtain a new grant than to perform 
 the conditions of the old. But a yet more potent motive 
 weighed upon his mind. The deed of 1629 contained a 
 diftindt provifion that the Englifh fettlements formed under 
 it fliould be fubjeCt to the government of the Maffachufetts 
 Bay, until they efiablifhed fettled governments among 
 themfelves. However judicious that may have feemed in 
 1629, the condition of things had widely changed in the 
 intervening nine years. In 1638, Wheelwright had juft 
 undergone fentence of banifhment from the Maffachufetts 
 Bay, amid circumftances which would render the placing of 
 his new home under that government the farthefi; thing 
 from his wifhes. A new deed from the natives, that fliould 
 be free from that obnoxious feature, was a neceffity. It 
 would not invalidate the former one, of courfe, but would 
 practically fuperfede it. We may be fure that the new title 
 would be the only one that Wheelwright would affert, for the 
 term of his banifhment at leaft. This would completely 
 account for the deed of 1629 not being more diredly and 
 frequently referred to in after years. 
 
 But it is going too far to fay that the deed of 1629 was 
 never heard of till 1707. 
 
 On the thirteenth of Odlober, 1663, Wheelwright gave 
 
 his 
 
112 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 his depofition, which was fworn before the Court at Hamp¬ 
 ton, as follows: — 
 
 “This deport teftifieth that himfelfe w th fome others who were to fit 
 down at Exiter did imploy Edward Colcord to purchace for them as he 
 remembers a certayn trabt of land from Oyfter river to Merimack, of 
 y e Indians, for which they gave him ten or twelve pound in money & 
 had a grant thereof figned by fome Sagamors with their marks upon it, 
 of wh ch Runawitt was one.” 142 
 
 The laffc claufe in this depofition is important to our 
 inquiry, where Wheelwright ftates that Runawit was one of 
 the Sagamores who figned the deed of the land which he 
 bought from the Indians. Now Runawit did not fign 
 either of the deeds of 1638, but his name does appear as a 
 figner of the deed of 1629. It may be admitted that the 
 defcription of the land, given in the depofition,—“from 
 Oyfter river to Merrimac,” — does not correfpond with the 
 defcription in the deed of 1629; and it is quite probable 
 that Wheelwright intended to refer to the purchafe of 1638, 
 as we have feen that he practically waived that of 1629. 
 But the ftubborn queftion remains, How did he happen to 
 name Runawit as a grantor, if Runawit never figned any 
 deed ? It is common, after a confiderable lapfe of time, to 
 forget names and tranfaCtions that actually happened ; but 
 who ever heard of remembering a name that never was ufed ? 
 — a thing that never did happen ? This difficulty has been 
 poorly met by the fuggeftion, without evidence, that Wheel¬ 
 wright may have miftaken the name of Runawit for that of 
 
 Watchanowet, 
 
 142 Potter’s Hiftory of Manchefter, ham County, in the cafe of Smith v. 
 N. H. 18, note. The depofition is to Wadleigh, A.D. 1711. 
 be found in the Court files of Rocking- 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 113 
 
 Watchanowet, who was a figner of the deed of 1638. But 
 what poffible ground can there be for fo thinking ? The 
 names are not fufficiently alike to render it probable that 
 Wheelwright confounded them by reafon of their fimilarity. 
 Neither was this the cafe of a fudden effort to recall a long 
 paft tranfadtion. On the contrary, it was a formal, judicial 
 adt, where the memory was deliberately ranfacked for fadts 
 to be atteffed under the folemnity of an oath. Wheelwright 
 had lived for years in the vicinity of thofe Indian chiefs, 
 and their names muff have been too familiar to his ear to 
 admit of miftake, efpecially under circumftances calling 
 for the utmoft accuracy. 
 
 But this is not the only inftance in which the Wheel¬ 
 wright deed was heard of before 1707. 
 
 In 1676, Edward Randolph came over from England as 
 agent for Robert Mafon, the then claimant of the foil of 
 New Hampfhire, and promulgated among the inhabitants a 
 letter addreffed to them by the latter, in the charadter of 
 proprietor. The people of Portfmouth held a public town 
 meeting on the occafion, and protefted againft Mafon’s 
 pretenfions, declaring that they had in good faith purchafed 
 their lands from the Indians; and incorporated the declara¬ 
 tion in a petition to the king. 143 Now, there is no pretence 
 that there was ever any other purchafe of the natives’ right 
 to the territory of Portfmouth than that of 1629, which was 
 the foundation of the Wheelwright deed. The deeds of 1638 
 expreflly exclude the Pafcataqua patents, and cover no part 
 of Portfmouth. The declaration of the inhabitants in 1676, 
 
 then, 
 
 143 Adams’ Annals of Portfmouth, 59. 
 
 15 
 
114- The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 then, that they had purchafed their lands from the Indians, 
 was a palpable recognition of the deed of 1629. 
 
 On the eleventh of June, 1680, after the separate govern¬ 
 ment of New Hamplhire had been conftituted, and while 
 the Mafonian claim loomed up heavily over the inhabi¬ 
 tants, the General Court of the province adopted an addrefs 
 to the king, in which they befought his majefty’s protection 
 from injury by pretended claimers to their foil, “confider- 
 ing,”— to ufe their own language, — “the purchafe of our 
 lands from the heathen, the native proprietors thereof, 
 and our long and quiet poffeffion thereof.” 144 Again in 
 1684, in anfwer to Mafon’s claim, the people urged the plea 
 that “ the prefent inhabitants (of this province), either by 
 themfelves or predeceffors, purchafed their poffeffion from 
 the natives, and by their permiffion did fit down upon the 
 land.” 145 Thefe were affertions made in behalf of the whole 
 population, and refpefting the foil of the entire province. 
 The lands referred to were all embraced in Wheelwright’s 
 acquifition from the Indians in 1629, but not all in any 
 other purchafe. In refpedt to thofe portions of the lands, 
 therefore, to which the rights of the aborigines could only 
 have been obtained by the deed of 1629, the inhabitants 
 muff obvioufly have relied upon that inftrument, in their 
 allegation that thofe rights had been purchafed. Here are 
 two other inftances, therefore, in which the Wheelwright 
 deed was heard of, in effeCt though not by name, prior to 
 its difcovery in 1707. 
 
 It would appear alfo, from the letter of Cotton Mather to 
 
 George 
 
 144 1 N. H. Provincial Papers, 412. 145 Ibid. 512. 
 
Was it Spurious ? 11 5 
 
 George Vaughan, that the Wheelwright deed had been 
 known and much talked of before it was found in 1707. 
 His language is this: “ There feems to have been as re¬ 
 markable a difplay and inftance of that Providence in the 
 finding of this inftrument juft before the fitting of your laft 
 Court about this affair; and after it had been for very many 
 years difcourfed of among the good men who knew of fuch 
 an inftrument, but with regret concluded it loft and gone 
 beyond all recovery.” 146 It may be admitted that Mather 
 was as credulous and faulty in judgment as he has been 
 pronounced, but no perfon has ventured to affert that he 
 was falfe. Thefe allegations of his are matters of fadt, 
 affirmed upon his own veracity, and their entire truthfulnefs 
 is above fufpicion. 
 
 So far, then, is the ftatement that the Wheelwright deed 
 was never heard of till 1707 from being true, that the won¬ 
 der rather is, confidering that it was not intended to be 
 relied on after the fubftitutes of 1638 were taken, that fo 
 many unmiftakable allufions to it are now to be detected. 
 
 The foregoing may be pronounced the moft weighty 
 arguments which have been produced againft the validity 
 of the Wheelwright deed. But there are others, more efpe- 
 cially connected with the inftrument itfelf, which, though of 
 minor confequence, yet demand notice. 
 
 i. The length and formal character of the deed, unlike 
 all other conveyances from the natives, when there was no 
 lawyer in the country capable of framing fuch an inftrument; 
 the ftipulations and provifos it contained, efpecially for the 
 
 benefit 
 
 146 3 Belknap’s Hift. N. H., Appx. No. 1. 
 
116 The W^heelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 benefit of the Indians, who it is well known were improvi¬ 
 dent and carelefs of the future ; the alleged miftakes of fadls 
 in regard to the apprehended irruptions of the Tarrateens, 
 and as to the date of the fettlement of the Maffachufetts 
 Bay, — thefe matters have been feverally enlarged upon, as 
 impugning the credibility of the paper. 147 
 
 But if Wheelwright came over in 1629 to obtain the 
 fandfion of the aborigines to his fixing a location for a 
 projected colony, he would naturally have provided himfelf 
 in advance with all the information, and every appliance, 
 which could be forefeen to be needful. A general form for 
 a releafe of land by the natives, to be filled up, perhaps, by 
 Wheelwright on the fpot, could be eafily procured from a 
 conveyancer at Alford. 148 It would have been all the more 
 likely to be technical and prolix, from the ignorance there 
 of precedents of the fame character. The fiipulations in 
 the Indians’ behalf were due to the impulfes of Wheel¬ 
 wright’s own juft heart, fcorning to take an unfair advan¬ 
 tage of the fimple favages. The dread of incurfions of the 
 Tarrateens, felt by their wefiern neighbors, muft have been 
 familiar to every Englifh inquirer refpedting the Indians ; 149 
 fo that the infertion of it in the deed was perfectly natural, 
 even if it was incorredl,— which, however, is by no means 
 certain. 
 
 The pofition taken in oppofition to the deed, that its 
 
 allufion 
 
 147 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 493-7. whether the clergyman might not in 
 
 148 Wheelwright himfelf was familiar early life have been articled to an at- 
 with the phrafeology of conveyancing, torney. 
 
 if, as feems probable, he drew his own 149 Levett’s Voyage to New Eng- 
 laft will. A reference to it, as given at land, in 28 Mafs. Hift. Soc. Collections, 
 the clofe of this volume, may lead the 175. 
 reader, as it did the writer, to wonder 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 ii 7 
 
 allufion to the colony of Maffachufetts Bay is an anachronifm 
 becaufe that colony had not yet been founded, 150 will hardly 
 bear examination. The original Maffachufetts grant from 
 the council of Plymouth was iffued more than a year before 
 the date of the Wheelwright deed. By virtue of it, Endicott 
 had come out and affumed the office of governor at Salem, 
 bringing with him a party of a hundred colonifts. The 
 royal charter incorporating the “ Governor and Company of 
 the Maffachufetts Bay ” was a confirmation of that grant, 
 with the addition of civil rights and political privileges; and 
 the new Company was fubffantially a continuation of the 
 old, Endicott holding the fame pofition under its authority 
 as before. At the outfet, Salem was the plantation which 
 the Company fpecially cared for; but when the royal charter 
 was iffued, all the fettlements along the coaft, from the 
 Charles to the Merrimac, fell within their jurifdidtion and 
 charge. 
 
 Wheelwright would naturally have made a point of 
 acquainting himfelf with all that was to be learned in Eng¬ 
 land refpedfing the colonization of the fedlion which he 
 was intending to vifit. The charter of the Maffachufetts 
 Bay Corporation paffed the feals weeks before he need have 
 failed for America, and no extraordinary diligence was 
 requifite to enable him to afcertain its general provifions. 
 He could have known that the colony of Maffachufetts then 
 poffeffed one confiderable fettlement, and the nuclei of 
 others, which were juft about being reinforced with largely 
 increafed numbers and ample fupplies. 
 
 It is faid, however, that thofe fettlements were then 
 
 fpoken 
 
 150 This point was prefcnted molt fully by Dr. Bouton. 
 
118 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 fpoken of here by their fpecial names, as Naumkeag, 151 &c. 
 But Wheelwright, gaining his information in England, could 
 hardly have been expedted to follow the American fafhion. 
 The moft he probably could have known of them was that 
 they conftituted the then colony of the Maffachufetts Bay; 
 and as fuch they are referred to, with entire propriety, in 
 the deed of 1629. No ferious difcrepancy is to be found, 
 therefore, in the mention of the colonifts of the Maffachu¬ 
 fetts Bay in the deed; notwithftanding it was a year 
 before the foundation of Bofton. 152 
 
 But it is urged that in the Wheelwright deed the Englifh 
 
 grantees are defcribed as of the Maffachufetts Bay, when 
 % 
 
 not one of them lived there, or had probably ever fet his 
 foot there. 153 At the worft, this is what the lawyers call a 
 mifdefcription, not implying any intention to deceive or 
 injure. Why, how, or by whom it was done, we have no 
 means of knowledge, but we can fee that it is a matter of 
 no fpecial confequence. If a blundering fcribe had by 
 miftake inferted it in the fair draft of the inftrument, it 
 probably would not have been confidered important enough 
 to corredt, at the rifle of defacing the writing. Could we 
 learn the particulars of the tranfadtion, it is not unreafon- 
 able to fuppofe that a very fimple explanation might be 
 found of the apparent inconfiftency. I will fuggeft one 
 which is not at all improbable. 
 
 The aborigines muff have known that fome adventurers 
 
 who 
 
 151 Dr. Bouton’s argument. chufetts Colony, Anno 1628.”-34 Mafs. 
 
 152 The very title to Scottow’s Nar- Hift. Soc. Collections, 279. 
 
 rative feems enough to fettle this quef- 153 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 495. 
 tion ; “Of the planting of the Maffa- 
 
IVas it Spurious f 11 g 
 
 who had vifited their coafts, claiming to be Englifhmen, 
 had committed adts of injuflice and cruelty. But they 
 undoubtedly underftood that the fettlers of the Maffachu- 
 fetts Bay were friendly and juft, and, confequently, exadlly 
 the fort of perfons to whom they would be moft difpofed to 
 part with the poffeffion of their lands. If they had de¬ 
 clined, by reafon of this feeling, to deal with any Englifh 
 except thofe of the Maffachufetts Bay, Wheelwright’s en¬ 
 deavor would be to convince them that he and his fellow- 
 colonifts were men of like charadter with them. The 
 fimpleffc, perhaps the only feafible, way of doing fo was to 
 reprefent themfelves as of the Maffachufetts Bay. The 
 idea which this would convey to the Indians was not fo 
 much that of locality, as of charadter, — that Wheelwright 
 and thofe whom he reprefented were of the fame blood, 
 difpofition, and purpofes, as the Englifhmen of Maffachu¬ 
 fetts ; which was ftridtly true. And it would be doing no 
 wrong to the natives, for all that they could have intended 
 was to infure for themfelves defirable neighbors. 
 
 While there are various fuppofable ways in which this 
 wrong location of the grantees in the Wheelwright deed 
 may be eafily and confidently accounted for, fhall we, in our 
 ignorance, prefume to brand it as a forgery, upon the ground 
 that it is inexplicable ? 
 
 2. Another point made againfl the authenticity of the 
 Wheelwright deed is that Paffaconaway, fagamore of the 
 Penacooks, at the time when the deed purports to have 
 been figned by him, was unfriendly to the Englifh and op- 
 pofed to their fettlement in this country; fo that he was un¬ 
 likely 
 
120 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 
 likely to have been a party to any grant to them for that 
 purpofe. 154 This exception is bafed upon a certain fpeech 
 of the fagamore to his fon, alleged to have been made at a 
 formal gathering of their tribe in 1660. 155 For the account 
 of it we are indebted folely to Hubbard, it is believed; one 
 of the leaffc trufiworthy of our early hiftorians. No evi¬ 
 dence is to be found, outfide his pages, that fuch a meeting 
 of the Penacooks was held, or any fpeech uttered. 
 
 But if all queftion on this point were waived, and the 
 language attributed to the chieftain admitted to have been 
 fpoken by him, does our acquaintance with the oratorical 
 productions of the aborigines juftify us in giving them 
 fuch literal credence, as to venture to fettle doubtful hiftori- 
 cal queftions upon the faith of them ? On the contrary, is 
 it not proverbial that they are ufually couched in extrava¬ 
 gant, figurative expreffions, and calculated for producing 
 fome fpecial, immediate effeCt. without regard to accuracy 
 of fiatement ? 
 
 Certainly, if Paffaconaway afferted that at the date of this 
 deed he was an oppofer of the Englifh, he wofully mifrep- 
 refented the truth. Chriftopher Levitt fpeaks of having 
 met. and dealt with him, under the name of Conway, in 
 1623, fix years before that time ; and he was then entirely 
 friendly. 156 William Wood, who lived in this country from 
 1629 to 1633, mentions him as a noted necromancer, but 
 without any intimation that he was hoftile or unfriendly. 157 
 
 Thomas 
 
 154 Dr. Bouton’s argument. 166 Voyage to New England, in 28 
 
 165 Hubbard’s Indian Wars (ed. of Mafs. Hift. Soc. Collections, 173-4. 
 1801), 67. 157 New England’s ProfpeCt, ed. of 
 
 the Prince Society, 92, 78. 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 121 
 
 Thomas Morton, who was here at fundry times between 
 1622 and 1630, alludes to him as a “witch,” but alfo as a 
 “ man of the belt note and eftimation in all thefe parts.” 158 
 
 The firft mention of Paffaconaway by Winthrop is under 
 date of 1632, when he is credited with fetching back an In¬ 
 dian of another tribe, who had killed an Englifhman in the 
 wigwam of a Penacook. Surely, the capture and furrender 
 of a red man, that juftice might be done him by the whites, 
 was the very reverfe of unfriendlinefs. 159 
 
 It has been pointed out, as further proof of Paffacona¬ 
 way’s jealoufy of the Englifh, that he did not come in and 
 fubmit to the Maffachufetts government till the year 1644. 160 
 But that cannot imply that he was unwilling to allow the 
 Englifh to fettle on his territory; for it is upon record that 
 two years previoufly, in 1642, Paffaconaway confented to 
 the fale by Paffaquo and Saggahew of the fite of Haver¬ 
 hill, to be occupied by the whites. 161 
 
 It is poffible that Paffaconaway, who was very aged at 
 the time of his reputed fpeech, may in early life have been 
 oppofed to the Englifh, of whom fome unfavorable fpeci- 
 mens, no doubt, had appeared on thefe fhores ; but it is 
 clear that at the time of the execution of the Wheelwright 
 deed, and for fome years before, he was on perfectly amica¬ 
 ble terms with them. 
 
 3. It is attempted to be fhown that various anachronifms 
 exift in the memorandum of delivery of poffeffion, fubfcribed 
 
 by 
 
 158 New Englifh Canaan, Force’s ed. 160 Dr. Bouton’s Argument. 
 
 25, 28. 161 Chafe’s Hitt. Haverhill, Mafs. 46. 
 
 15£> 1 Savage’s Winthrop, *89. 
 
 16 
 
122 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 by feven Englifh witneffes, in fundry official capacities, which 
 is appended to the difputed deed. 162 
 
 The firft three of the witneffes are Walter Neal, governor, 
 George Vaughan, fadlor, and Ambrofe Gibbons, trader, for 
 the Company of Laconia. 
 
 With regard to Neal, it is contended that he was never 
 in this country till he arrived here in the bark “Warwick,” 
 in 1630. For proof of this we are referred to the brief of 
 the Governor and Company of the Maffachufetts Bay, dated 
 the fixth of September, 1676, in which the ftatement is made 
 that Neal firft came over in 1630. 163 But every lawyer knows 
 that fuch a brief is no evidence of the matters it contains. 
 It is a pleading; a ftatement of the party’s cafe in the moft 
 favorable manner; and to be proved, if the requifite evidence 
 can be had, — otherwife to go for nothing. It does not ap¬ 
 pear that any evidence of this allegation was produced. 
 
 If we examine the brief, we ffiall find it in at leaffc one 
 other inftance entirely inaccurate in a matter of date. It 
 contains the ftatement that the feveral fettlements in New 
 Hampfhire voluntarily fubmitted to the jurifdidtion of Maf¬ 
 fachufetts, in the year 1641. Now it is a matter of record 
 that Exeter, one of thofe fettlements, did not fubmit until 
 1643. And it maybe added that even then it was with fuch 
 manifeft reludfance, that the term “ voluntarily ” could hardly 
 be applied to it, except in irony. 
 
 Of Neal we have information that he was in London in 
 February, 1628, diftreffed for the want of money due him 
 
 for 
 
 162 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 505, 163 1 N. H. Provincial Papers, 332. 
 
 508—Q—IO. 
 
Was it Spurious t 
 
 123 
 
 for military fervices. 104 That was the moment, furely, when 
 he would be mod ready to engage in foreign or any other 
 fervice which promifed him honorable fupport. There is 
 believed to be nothing to fliow that he might not have come 
 here in 1629, and returned again the fame feafon. Nothing 
 was more common than fuch annual voyages. 
 
 In regard to Gibbons and Vaughan, all that need be faid 
 is, that no one pretends to any definite knowledge when they 
 firft came to this country. 
 
 But it is urged that “ the grant to the Laconia Company 
 was not obtained till November, 1629,” fix months after the 
 date of the Wheelwright deed; and therefore the defcrip- 
 tion of thofe witneffes as officers of that company is a fatal 
 incongruity. 165 
 
 To this it may be replied that there never was any grant 
 to the Laconia Company , at all. There w 7 as a grant of ter¬ 
 ritory under the name of Laconia, and there was a Laconia 
 Company; but who can tell whether the company took its 
 name from the grant, or the grant from the company ? The 
 argument affumes the former; of which there is no proof. 
 The acceptance of a grant did not confiitute its holders a 
 company, bearing the fame name. There was no Mafonia 
 Company; no Maine Company; no New Hampfhire Com- 
 * pany, though there were grants under thofe feveral defigna- 
 tions. But if there had firft been a Laconia Company, what 
 would be more natural than that they fliould wifh to beftow 
 that name upon any patent which they might afterwards 
 procure ? 
 
 There 
 
 164 MS. in poffeffion of C. W. Tuttle, 185 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 509. 
 Efq. Enlarged upon by Dr. Bouton. 
 
124 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629 ; 
 
 There is evidence that the name of Laconia was at an 
 early period commonly, if incorrectly, applied to New 
 Hampfhire and Maine, — the territory, in faCt, which was 
 included in the patent of Mafon and Gorges, of 1622. True, 
 the name of Maine was fpecified in the grant as intended to 
 be given to the territory, but it never was in faft applied to 
 it. Nor was it given to the portion of it lying eaft of the 
 Pafcataqua, until 1641. By what general name was that 
 country known, in the interim? John Joffelyn, the Englifh 
 traveller, who was here in 1638, and wrote feveral years 
 later, fays: “ The province of Maine (or the country of the 
 Traquoes), heretofore called Laconia or New Somerfetfhire, 
 is a colony belonging to the grandfon of F. Gorges.” 166 
 There feems to be fome confufion of places in the mind of 
 the worthy voyager, but clearly he meant to affert that the 
 tradl which had been known as Laconia was alfo called New 
 Somerfetfhire ; and that it belonged, not to the region about 
 the great lakes, but to the territory by the fea. So alfo in 
 a paper now in the office of the Secretary of State in Maffa- 
 chufetts, entitled “ A Short View of Mrs. Mafon’s cafe,” 
 her hufband is faid to have been “inflated in fee, together 
 with Sir F. Gorges and other affociates, in feverall other 
 Lands, by the name of Laconia, lying near Pafcataway and 
 at Newichawannock.” 167 
 
 Now if the country around the Pafcataqua was known 
 to the earlier fettlers as Laconia, the perfons having the 
 control of it might well denominate themfelves the Laconia 
 
 Company; 
 
 166 Two Voyages to New England, 167 3 Mafs. Archives, 181, 2. 
 in 23 Mafs. Hilt. Soc. Collections, 342. 
 
Was it Spurious ? 
 
 125 
 
 Company; and it is, at lead, as likely that the name was 
 acquired from that circumftance, as that it was derived from 
 the grant of 1629. 
 
 But it is doing no violence to probability to fuppofe that 
 the company may have been formed in anticipation of the 
 grant, and of courfe anterior to it. In that cafe, if there 
 had been any unexpected delay in procuring the patent in 
 England, the company in America might have antedated 
 it by months, limply for that reafon. 
 
 But even if there were good caufe to believe that the 
 company received its appellation from the grant, and was 
 formed fubfequently to it, we are not at all certain that the 
 grant may not have been originally made before November, 
 1629. On referring to the portion of the records of the 
 Council of Plymouth which is ftill extant, it will be found 
 that it was nothing uncommon for a patent once iffued to be 
 reiffued at a fubfequent time. Thus it appears that a patent 
 was fealed to Gorges and Mafon the fourth of November, 
 1631, and on the lad of February, the fucceeding year, two 
 duplicate patents of the fame premifes were fealed to the 
 fame perfons. And on the fecond of March, 1632, two 
 patents were iffued to Gorges and others, which were the 
 fame as others fealed to them on the prior fecond of Decem¬ 
 ber, with the exception of a partial change of grantees: 
 “ So that this patent,” fays the record, “ is the lad and true 
 patent, and the other cancelled and made void.” 168 There 
 can be fcarcely a doubt that in each of thefe cafes the later 
 grant bore date as of the day it was iffued, so that the 
 
 patent 
 
 168 Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society for April, 1867, 103, 105. 
 
126 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629 ; 
 
 patent thereafter known and referred to would be dated long 
 after the land was in reality firfl granted. We can have 
 no affurance, therefore, that the original patent of Laconia 
 might not have been in exiftence before May, 1629. Un¬ 
 fortunately, there are no means of verifying the point, for 
 the records of the Council of Plymouth from 1623 to 1631 
 are not now to be found. 
 
 From thefe confiderations, however, it would feem that 
 the mention of the Laconia Company as exifting in May, 
 1629, does not neceffarily involve an anachronifm, as the 
 opponents of the deed have fuppofed. 169 
 
 The next two witneffes to the delivery of poffeffion of the 
 
 lands under the Wheelwright deed are Richard Vines, gov- 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ernor, and Richard Bonighton, affiftant, of the plantation of 
 Saco. In relation to thefe it is objedted, that Saco was not 
 fettled till fome years after 1629, and that neither Vines 
 was appointed governor, nor Bonighton affiftant, thereof, 
 until 1639. 170 But it is pretty well underftood that Vines 
 vifited Saco as early as 1609, an d again feven years after, 
 “for the exprefs objedt of exploring the country with a 
 view to form a fettlement; ” and hiftorians affure us that a 
 plantation of a permanent charadter was begun there in 
 1623 or 1624. 171 Some form of government muft have been 
 
 then 
 
 169 I am aware that John S. Jennefs, 
 Efq., in the fecond edition of his pict- 
 urefque Hiftory of the Itles of Shoals, 
 iflued fince this paper was originally 
 prepared, reprefents the Laconia Com¬ 
 pany as formed on the ruins of the 
 Canada Company, and as commencing 
 operations in 1630; p. 58. I under- 
 ftand, however, that the ftatement is 
 founded upon probabilities, and not 
 
 upon pofitive evidence. The Laconia 
 Company may ftill have been in exift¬ 
 ence, de fafto, before the Laconia pat¬ 
 ent of November, 1629, was obtained, 
 and long before it was even in con¬ 
 templation to undertake extended opera¬ 
 tions. 
 
 170 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 510. 
 
 171 Folfom’s Hift. Saco, &c. 22. 1 
 
 Williamfon’s Hift. Maine, 206, 216, 227. 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 127 
 
 then adopted, and fome officers appointed, whofe duties 
 would neceffarily correfpond with thofe of governor and 
 affiftant. No one can now fay who and what thofe officers 
 were : can any one fay who and what they were not ? 
 
 Folfom, in his Hiftory of Saco and Biddeford, alludes 
 to the affault made upon the integrity of the Wheelwright 
 deed, which impreffed him, as it has many others who have 
 not thoroughly inveftigated the fubjedt, as unanfwerable; 
 but adds: “ The evidence drawn from the atteflation of 
 Vines and Bonighton is, however, the leaft fatisfadtory. The 
 inhabitants of the plantation of Saco were evidently fubjedt 
 to a local jurifdidtion (fimilar to that eftablifhed at Exeter) 
 at lead as early as 1630, and perhaps earlier, before a 
 general government exifted; and who fo likely to be their 
 governor and affiftant as Vines and Bonighton? ” 172 
 
 The deed can hardly be proved fpurious by this evidence. 
 The remaining two witneffes of delivery of poffeffion are 
 Thomas Wiggin, agent, and Edward Hilton, fteward of the 
 Plantation at Hilton’s point. It is afferted of Wiggin, as 
 it has been of feveral others of the witneffes, on no better 
 bafts than want of knowledge, that he was probably not in 
 this country in 1629. 173 But, as we have already obferved, 
 the lack of evidence, refpedling the affairs of New Hamp- 
 fhire at this nebulous period, warrants no inference of value 
 in fettling a doubtful hiftorical point. It is fheer prefump- 
 tion to offer in fupport of an indidtment, teftimony which 
 only juftifies us in writing “ ignoramus ” upon it. 
 
 With regard to Hilton, it is argued that he could not 
 
 have 
 
 172 Folfom’s Hift. Saco, &c. 320. 173 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 510. 
 
128 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629 ; 
 
 have figned the deed, officially , until his patent was obtained 
 for the plantation at Hilton’s point; and this did not 
 happen till the fucceeding year. 174 But why ? There was a 
 plantation at Hilton’s point long before May, 1629, and 
 Edward Hilton was in fa£l one of the principal managers 
 of it. Why fhould he not style himfelf “ tteward ”— furely 
 not a very prefuming title — when he was to all intents and 
 purpofes actually fuch? Would a patent for the land give 
 him any better right to do fo? But it feems a watte of 
 words to dilate on this exception. 
 
 It is further contended, that Hilton could never have 
 attefted a deed which “ dettroyed all his title to ettate, in the 
 enjoyment of which he had peacefully lived fix or feven 
 years: ” and a fomewhat fimilar objection is raifed with 
 regard to Neal and others who reprefented Mafon and 
 Gorges, the whole of whofe rights between the Merrimac 
 and the Pafcataqua, it is urged, “ mutt be defeated by this 
 deed.” 175 
 
 In order to ettimate aright the weight of thefe fuggef- 
 tions, it is neceffary to inquire firft into the actual force 
 and effedt of deeds of lands from the Indians. Thefe 
 inttruments have been commonly fpoken of as “ convey¬ 
 ances,” and would naturally be regarded by perfons who 
 had given no fpecial examination to the matter, as capable 
 of pafting the title to lands, like deeds among ourfelves. 
 But this is a very erroneous idea. 
 
 The law upon the fubjedt appears to have been well 
 fettled and underttood from the earliett period in the hittory 
 
 of 
 
 174 Dr. Bouton’s argument. 175 1 Savage’s Winthrop, 2d ed. 510, 496. 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 129 
 
 of Englifh emigration to this country. The General Court 
 of Maffachufetts laid it down in 1638, in a cafe arifing 
 under one of the deeds to Wheelwright, as follows: The 
 Indians have only a natural right to the lands which they 
 do or can improve, and the reft of the country is open to 
 any who can or will improve it. Confequently, the Court 
 infifted that a deed of the Indians, purporting to convey 
 lands which they had not improved, conftituted no title 
 whatever againft a prior occupation by white fettlers. 176 
 
 In Dane’s Abridgment, a work of the higheft authority, 
 the law as it has always exifted, in regard to this matter, 
 is fully dated. It may be fummarized thus: No ftatute 
 has ever recognized the capacity of an Indian, in his na¬ 
 tive condition, to own or be feized of wild or uncultivated 
 lands, or to have a right of foil and fee therein. Between 
 the cafe of an Indian and of a citizen, therefore, there is 
 this material diftindtion, that while the latter by a deed with 
 the proper formalities may convey fuch lands, the former 
 cannot; his deed thereof paffing in law no title whatever. 177 
 
 The 
 
 and a citizen’s deed of fuch land, 
 founded in their different rights to 
 fuch property. Our ftatute law has 
 ever provided that a deed duly exe¬ 
 cuted, acknowleged, and recorded, fhall 
 be fufficient to convey the lands con¬ 
 tained in it, without any other a6t or 
 ceremony in the law. This ftatute law 
 only applies to a citizen having right 
 and power to convey; that is, as our 
 law has been invariably conftrued, hav¬ 
 ing feizin of the lands, but never to an 
 Indian, as to wild lands ; for though 
 by our law, as it has flood fince 1633, 
 he may have had right to lands he has 
 fubdued, as above, and feizin of them, 
 
 yet 
 
 176 1 Savage’s Winthrop, *290. 
 
 177 4 Dane’s Abridgment of American 
 Law, 68-9. As the work may not be 
 readily acceffible to all hiftorical ftu- 
 dents, I fubjoin the author’s language : 
 Ҥ 16. A law was palled in 1633 that 
 feemed to recognize that an Indian in 
 his native condition may be the owner 
 of, and be feized of, the lands he pof- 
 feffes and improves, by his fubduing 
 them; but no colony, province, or 
 commonwealth flatutes have ever rec¬ 
 ognized that he can be the owner, or be 
 feized, of wild and uncultivated lands. 
 §17. There is a material diftindtion 
 between an Indian deed of wild land 
 
 17 
 
130 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 The Rev. John Bulkley, of Connecticut, compofed, in 
 1724, an effay upon the aborigines’ rights to the lands in 
 America, and the titles derived from them. His conclufions 
 are in fubftance the fame: That the natives had a good 
 claim only to fuch lands as they fubdued or improved, and 
 that the Englifh, with the royal allowance, had undoubted 
 right to enter upon and appropriate all of the country 
 which was unimproved by the aborigines; and this without 
 making them any compenfation or return therefor. 178 
 
 An Indian deed, therefore, transferred a legal title to 
 only fo much of the foil as the grantors actually improved, 
 and was of no validity fo far as it affumed to grant wild or 
 uncultivated lands. When it is remembered, that the 
 aborigines reduced no part of this continent to cultivation, 
 except a few trifling patches for railing corn and beans, the 
 remark of Andros, that he regarded an Indian deed no 
 more than the fcratch of a bear’s paw, is feen to have more 
 foundation than has generally been attributed to it. 
 
 The releafe of the natives to the lands we occupy, was 
 obtained, not fo much as an affurance of title, as an affur- 
 
 yet he has never been confidered «as 
 having feizin of wild lands ; and there 
 is no cafe to be found in which a cor¬ 
 rect lawyer has ever in a writ declared 
 on an Indian’s feizin of fuch lands. 
 
 . . . Hence an Indian deed never has 
 had power to convey wild lands for 
 want of that kind of feizin our law 
 views as effential to give a power to 
 convey. A citizen by our law may 
 have the right of foil and fee in wild, 
 lands ; an Indian in his native Hate 
 cannot: and fo has the law of England, 
 of America, and of Chriltendom viewed 
 
 ance 
 
 his cafe from the firft difcovery of 
 America ; his deed has been viewed 
 only as extinguifhing his claim, and as 
 giving quoad him to the grantee, a 
 right of peaceable entry, and not as pall¬ 
 ing the foil and fee. . . . Every Englifh- 
 man who came to America viewed his 
 Englifh patent as giving him the legal 
 title to the land ; and he fettled with 
 the Indians as of convenience, of equity 
 or humanity, and not as a matter of 
 law, effential to his title.” 
 
 178 4 Mafs. Hilt. Soc. Colledtions, 
 179, 180. 
 
JV'as it Spurious f 13 I 
 
 ance of their good will and friendfhip. This is the afpedfc 
 in which that eminent jurift, the late Chief Juftice Smith, 
 of New Hampfhire, regarded Wheelwright’s purchafes. 
 While there was no pretence that any legal title to the foil 
 was acquired by them, they conftituted, in his judgment, 
 limply a fufficient licenfe to fettle and occupy. 179 And in 
 the fame light muff Wheelwright have regarded his dealings 
 with the fagamores. He never took the trouble to regifter 
 either of his deeds, nor did he ever make any conveyance 
 of land founded upon them. Not only this, but he afterwards 
 purchafed from another perfon, and paid for, a part of the 
 fame land. 180 If he had confidered that the fee or title to 
 the foil became veiled in himfelf by the Indians’ deeds, a 
 man of his acknowledged prudence and bufmefs capacity 
 would have conducted, in thefe refpedls, very differently. 
 
 Such being alike the law and the popular underffanding, 
 from the earlieft period of our hiftory, the notion that an 
 Indian deed might operate to invalidate a grant emanating 
 from the Crown, whether iffued before or after it, could 
 never have entered any man’s imagination. Edward Hilton, 
 who had improved his lands for years, and was about to 
 take out a patent for them from the Council of Plymouth, 
 would have laughed to fcorn any one who had fuggefted 
 that the fagamores’ deed to Wheelwright could put his title 
 in jeopardy. And the reprefentatives of Mafon and Gorges 
 would have had even lefs caufe for apprehenfion, — if that 
 could ]?e, — for their principals’ claims were already fortified 
 by occupation and patent. 
 
 But, 
 
 179 6 N. H. Hift. Soc. Colle< 5 tions, wright, of land in Hampton, 1647 ; on 
 
 172-3. the Records of old Norfolk County, at 
 
 180 Deed of Henry Ambros to Wheel- Salem. 
 
132 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 But, on the other hand, we can difcern, in the true opera¬ 
 tion of the Indians’ grants, fufficient reafons for Hilton 
 and others interefted in New Hampfhire defiring that their 
 lands fhould be included in the Wheelwright purchafe. 
 As yet, they had no covenant that affured them of the 
 natives’ amity and confent to their fettlement here. By 
 the early fettlers it was deemed highly important to procure 
 fuch an affuranee. The Wheelwright deed gave it to them. 
 The benefits of peaceful and unmolefted refidence upon the 
 foil were expreffly extended to all the Englifh fettlers upon 
 the territory which it included. 181 
 
 This view of the effect of Indian deeds fhows the little 
 importance that is to be attached to the exceptions in re¬ 
 gard to the immenfe “ domain ” which the “ liberal Saga¬ 
 mores ” fold to Wheelwright, and to the improbability that 
 he would buy and pay for the land “twice over.” The na¬ 
 tives were as ready, probably, to quit their claim to mill¬ 
 ions of acres as to thoufands ; and would expedt no greater 
 confideration for the one than for the other. The price 
 paid for the grants of 1638, Wheelwright, in his depofition 
 in 1663, fiates to have been ten or twelve pounds; certainly 
 not an extravagant fum to throw away even on “.a fecond 
 purchafe,” when we confider the ftrong inducements which 
 then exifted againft founding his fettlement under the firth 
 The deeds of 1638 covered far the greater proportion of 
 the territory embraced in that of 1629; and, unlefs the price 
 of real eftate had declined between thofe dates, the “kettles, 
 victuals, and clothing,” which made up the confideration of 
 
 the 
 
 181 See the provifions of the deed, infra. 
 
» 
 
 Was it Spurious f 133 
 
 the earlier deed, could not have been fo numerous and 
 bulky, as to make it neceffary for us to inquire “ how they 
 could have been conveyed to the falls of the Squamfcot.” 
 
 We have now examined all the arguments deemed 
 worthy of ferious notice, which have been advanced to 
 prove that the Wheelwright deed was not genuine. It 
 would, perhaps, be unneceffary to go farther. The burden of 
 proof being upon thofe who feek to impeach the inftrument, 
 and they being bound to make out their cafe beyond reafon- 
 able queftion, it certainly feems that they have failed in the 
 attempt. But there are other confiderations tending ftrongly 
 to rebut the idea that the Wheelwright deed was a forgery, 
 which it may contribute to a full underftanding of the 
 fubjedt to mention. 
 
 1. The form and flyle of the paper itfelf conftitute a pow¬ 
 erful defence againft the charge. If the deed was of mod¬ 
 ern manufacture, it was the work of no “ prentice hand.” 
 The fabricators of an inftrument capable of fuccefsfully 
 paffing the ordeal of a judicial inveftigation on two con¬ 
 tinents, and of impofing upon hiftorians and the public for 
 a century, muft have poffeffed remarkable {kill, knowledge, 
 and forefight. In framing a document which they knew 
 was to be fubjedted to the fevereft fcrutiny, what would have 
 been the probable and natural courfe of fuch forgers ? 
 Being, of courfe, aware that Indian deeds were generally 
 Ample and brief, and attefted by few witnefles, and that 
 every variation from the ufual form, every unneceffary 
 ftatement, every needlefs name, would enormoufly increafe 
 the chances of detection, — they would obvioufly have labored 
 to conftrudt their fidtitious inftrument in ftridt conformity 
 
 to 
 
134- The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 to cudom, with the fewed words, the lead amount of details, 
 and the fmalled number of names, confident with the 
 objeCt to be fecured by it. But the Wheelwright deed is 
 the abfolute reverfe of this. It is exceptionally long and 
 formal, it includes unufual providons, it abounds in date- 
 ments of faCt, and it contains the dgnatures of no lefs than 
 nine English witneffes, with official titles appended to feven 
 of them; and all this without the indrument being a whit 
 the more ufeful to the party who produced it, for any or all 
 of thefe extraordinary features. And, laffc, but not lead, it 
 bears date on a day of the month which the almanac {hows 
 to have fallen on Sunday; jud one of the blunders which 
 an adroit rogue would have taken fpecial pains to avoid. 
 In fhort, if the Wheelwright deed was forged, we mud 
 affiime that the contrivers of it ufelefdy, knowingly, and 
 intentionally loaded it with clews of every kind, by which 
 its falfity 'was liable and likely to be difcovered. In this 
 point of view, the greater part of the intrindc objections 
 which have been levelled at the genuinenefs of the paper 
 may be urged with much greater force to refute, than to 
 fudain, the imputation of forgery. 
 
 2. The well-known character of the party, by whom the 
 deed was put in evidence, forbids the hypotheds that it was 
 dCtitious. 
 
 Richard Waldron, the defendant in the aCtion of Allen 
 v. Waldron, was a merchant, of ample fortune, whofe later 
 reddence was in Portfmouth. His intelligence, capacity, 
 and integrity early introduced him into public life, and for 
 long periods he held the feveral podtions of Councillor, 
 Judge of Probate, and Chief Judice of the Court of Com¬ 
 
 mon 
 
Was it Spurious f 
 
 135 
 
 mon Pleas. At the time of the trial, he was fifty-feven 
 years of age, in the maturity. of his powers, and of a 
 character firmly eftablifhed. Adams, in his Annals of 
 Portfmouth, refers to him in this language: “ Amidft thefe 
 worldly honors and riches, he did not negleCt the more 
 important concerns of religion. He was circumfpect in his 
 Chriflian conduCl, and endeavored to walk agreeable to the 
 precepts of the gofpel.” If an eftablifhed character for 
 integrity and virtue will not effectually fliield its poffeffor 
 from the imputation of felony, after he has lain in his grave 
 for five generations, then no man’s name is fecure from 
 calumny. 182 But in the prefent cafe, no one has yet had the 
 hardihood to charge this exemplary magiftrate with partici¬ 
 pation in the crime of forgery. The fceptics have not 
 ventured to point out any individual as the offender. 
 
 Of courfe it is equally impoffible that a gentleman of 
 Judge Waldron’s character could have availed himself of 
 the deed, if he had known or had reafon to believe it was a 
 forgery. But if it had been forged, he could not but have 
 known it. He was born in Dover, in 1650, only twenty-one 
 
 ,82 Since this paper was originally 
 prepared, Dr. Bouton has obligingly 
 furnifhed me with advance flips from the 
 forthcoming ninth volume of N. H. 
 Provincial Papers, containing the peti¬ 
 tion of Elifha Clark and four others, 
 dated April 4, 1729, and addreffed to 
 Governor Burnet, in which they allege 
 that they being feized, in common with 
 Judge Richard Waldron, of certain 
 lands, he, on a petition for partition, 
 through the aid of a fecond jury, “ by 
 management under the colour of Law & 
 pradtice, but not warranted by either,” 
 procured the fhare thereof to be fet off 
 
 years 
 
 to himfelf in feveralty, which they be¬ 
 lieved fhould juftly have been affigned to 
 them. I cannot learn, however, that the 
 allegations were ever fubftantiated by 
 evidence, or that Judge Waldron was 
 even put to a hearing in the matter. If 
 the complaints of difappointed fuitors, 
 wholly unfupported by proofs, were 
 allowed to weigh againft the charadlers 
 of men, otherwife irreproachable, this 
 world would be an uncomfortable abid¬ 
 ing place for perfons compelled to go 
 to law, when they had right and juftice 
 on their fide. 
 
136 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 years after the date of the inftrument, and lived nearly all 
 his life upon the Pafcataqua. He was the fon of Major 
 Richard Waldron, many years a prominent official, and 
 once Prefident of New Hampffiire; who had come to this 
 country “ to fee how the land lay,” three years before 
 Wheelwright fettled at Exeter, and made his permanent 
 home in Dover, two years after that event. Major Waldron 
 was a large landholder in the province, and muff have 
 known the ftate of the title to it, and have heard every 
 rumor affedting it. In 1683, a fuit was brought againfl him 
 by Robert Mafon, to recover poffeffion of his lands; and 
 then he muft have had preffing occafion to review all that 
 he knew or had heard refpedting their original acquifition. 
 At that time, Judge Waldron, his eldeft fon, was thirty-three 
 years of age, and, as heir prefumptive to his father, could 
 not have failed to be apprifed of all that the latter’s memory 
 could furnifh, touching the title to the foil of the province. 
 
 It can hardly be doubted that Judge Waldron was 
 informed of the Wheelwright purchafe of 1638, and of that 
 of 1629 alfo, if there was fuch an one. If he had never 
 heard of the latter until 1707, and then a deed was pro¬ 
 duced bringing it for the firft time to his notice, he would 
 naturally have been fufpicious of the paper, and have fub- 
 jedted it to the moffc careful examination. It was eafy for 
 him to do this, thoroughly and fatisfadtorily. The records 
 of Maine, New Hampffiire, and Maffachufetts muft then 
 have contained, in a fmall compafs, the means of verification 
 of many of the dates and moft of the fignatures. It is 
 impoffible that a perfon of the acutenefs, experience, and 
 acquaintance with the fubjedt, which Judge Waldron pof- 
 
 feffed, 
 
Was it Spurious? 
 
 137 
 
 feffed, could have given an hour’s inveftigation to the deed, 
 without fatisfying himfelf that it was fpurious, if fuch were 
 the fadt. 
 
 It is not credible, therefore, that Waldron could have 
 ufed this paper in evidence, either through ignorance or 
 defign, unlefs it was in truth what it purported to be,— 
 the bona fide covenant of the Indian fagamores with John 
 Wheelwright. 
 
 3. There is another, feemingly unanfwerable, reafon to 
 dif believe that the Wheelwright deed was fabricated to be 
 ufed in the New Hampfhire land-controverfy. There was 
 no occafion for the deed, and no motive to forge it; and 
 fuch a crime is inconceivable without a motive. 
 
 In the firft place, the deed added no real ftrength to 
 Waldron’s title. It has been commonly affumed that its 
 effedt, if genuine, was to convey to Wheelwright and the 
 other grantees the fee and right of foil in the lands; and 
 that, being dated earlier than Mafon’s grant from the 
 Council of Plymouth, of November, 1629, it conftituted 
 the older and paramount title. This implies that a prior 
 deed from the aborigines would prevail againft a fubfequent 
 grant under the royal fandtion. How utterly without 
 foundation this affumption is, appears from the legal author¬ 
 ities that have already been cited. The Wheelwright deed 
 never was ufed with fuch a purpofe, and no well-informed 
 lawyer would have ftultified himfelf by fetting up a claim of 
 that nature. In the pleading in Allen v. Waldron, wherein 
 it is firft mentioned, the priority of its date is not adverted 
 to, and there is no hint that it was fet up in oppofition to 
 Mafon’s patent of 1629. 183 'phe 
 
 183 2 N. H. Provincial Papers, 526. 
 
 18 
 
138 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 The great defence which Waldron interpofed to Allen’s 
 claim was the ftatute of limitations; and it feems to have 
 been a perfect bar. He alleged that Allen, and thofe under 
 whom he claimed, had not been feized of the demanded 
 premifes within twenty years, nor entitled within fixty years. 
 The former allegation was all that was needed to bar the 
 action, which was ejectment; and the evidence fully fuf- 
 tained it. 
 
 The pleading, however, was informal, and contained 
 much irrelevant matter. Certainly, the Wheelwright pur- 
 chafe was no effential part of it. It was referred to, not as 
 conveying a title, but as the explanation or foundation of 
 Waldron’s poffejjion; and at belt can be confidered as con¬ 
 ferring what the lawyers call color of title, which is really 
 no title at all, but ferves to define the nature and extent of 
 the tenant’s occupation. And in that cafe the priority of 
 date made no difference ; an Indian deed made after Mafon’s 
 grant would have been as good as one made before it. 
 This fubject is too technical to be purfued in detail; but it 
 is confidently fubmitted to gentlemen of the legal profeffion, 
 that Waldron’s cafe could not have been ftrengthened in 
 any important degree, by the introduction of the Wheel¬ 
 wright deed. And this muft have been perfectly well under- 
 ftood by Charles Story, at leaft, of Judge Waldron’s coun- 
 fel, who was an able lawyer, educated for his profeffion in 
 England. 
 
 But while it is fafe to fay that no man would incur the 
 hazard of forging the Wheelwright deed for the queftion- 
 able, flight benefit it could render to the New Hampfhire 
 landholders, it by no means follows that the deed, if genuine, 
 
 would 
 
IFas it Spurious f 
 
 139 
 
 would not be put in evidence. It carried a moral weight, 
 and gave an air of good faith to the fettlers’ claims, which 
 no fuitor would throw away; but which would never have 
 fuggefted the fabrication of the evidence, nor have com- 
 penfated for the rifks of forgery. 
 
 But this is not the only ground on which it' may be 
 faid that the forgery of the Wheelwright deed was im¬ 
 probable becaufe it was unneceffary. When the contro- 
 verfy for the poffeffion of the foil of New Hampfhire 
 began, in 1683, there might indeed have been fome induce¬ 
 ment for the inhabitants to refort to extraordinary means, 
 to retain their homefteads. Robert Mafon, the claimant, 
 had at that time fufficient influence to fecure the appoint¬ 
 ment of fubfervient judges, and the feledtion of jurors deaf to 
 every confideration but thofe of his own intereft. But in 
 1707, when the cafe of Allen v. Waldron was pending, all 
 this was changed. Neither court nor jury were then creat¬ 
 ures of the holder of the patent, but might rather be faid 
 — the jurors at leaft — to be ftrongly biaffed againft him. 
 Belknap fays that “ Allen had as little profpedt of fuccefs in 
 the newly eflablifhed courts, as the people had when 
 Mafon’s fuits were carried on under Cranfield’s govern¬ 
 ment.” 184 And the adlion of the jury on the trial of Allen 
 v . Waldron in the Inferior Court, in April, 1707, fully bears 
 out the ftatement. The Wheelwright deed was not then in 
 evidence, probably not yet having been difcovered ; but 
 ftill the jury, on the other evidence in the cafe, not only 
 returned their verdidt for the defendant, but did fo in the 
 
 very 
 
 184 1 Belknap’s Hilt. N. H. 308. 
 
140 The Wheelwright Deed of 1629; 
 
 very teeth of the order of the Queen in Council that their 
 finding fhould be fpecial. They were fent out a fecond 
 time, with renewed indrublions to obey the Queen’s beheft, 
 but again returned into Court with a general verdidt for the 
 defendant: and they refolutely refufed to adl otherwife. 185 It 
 was condudt worthy of men who highly prized, and were re- 
 folved to maintain, their conffitutional rights ; for the order 
 to find fpecially had no warrant in the law of the land, and 
 was an adl of ufurpation. 
 
 With Courts thus conftituted, and jurors of fuch ftern 
 fluff, Judge Waldron could have had no poffible apprehen- 
 fion that his caufe — which was the caufe of the people — 
 was in the flighted hazard, in the Superior Court, with the 
 defences, at law and on the fadls, which he already poffeffed. 
 It could never have occurred to him, or to any other land¬ 
 holder in like fituation, that their caufe needed to be 
 flrengthened by any further proofs; and, lead of all, by the 
 fraudulent concodlion of a document that at the bed could 
 afford no vital aid, and, if difcovered, was certain to over¬ 
 whelm its producers and their caufe with irretrievable ruin. 
 
 A candid examination of the whole matter under condd- 
 eration feems to me to demondrate, that the arguments and 
 evidence which have been advanced to difcredit the Wheel¬ 
 wright deed are infufficient for the purpofe; but that, on 
 the other hand, the prefumptions in its favor aridng from 
 its hidorical claims, and the fadts which point to its gen- 
 uinenefs, as well as thofe which militate againd the theory 
 of forgery, are of paramount weight, and ought to prevail. 
 
 The 
 
 185 2 N. H. Provincial Papers, 520-1. 
 
IFas it Spurious f 
 
 141 
 
 The accufation of forgery, as the cafe ftands, fliould in 
 my judgment be pronounced, in the language of the 
 Scottifh law, “ not proven.” But for one, I hold myfelf at 
 liberty to follow where the evidence may lead. Time will 
 furely add to our means of knowledge, as it has already fhed 
 much light on the quedion fmce it was fird mooted. 
 Perhaps the difputed document itfelf may be exhumed from 
 fome forgotten depofitory, and put an end to fpeculation. 
 In the prefent imperfedt date of our knowledge it is ridicu¬ 
 lous to dogmatize upon the fubjedt. Holding the mind 
 open to receive new fadts, and the judgment free to weigh 
 them without prejudice, is the only fure method to enable 
 us to avoid perplexing dilemmas, and to difcover the road 
 at lad to truth. 
 
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED. 
 
 HE REAS wee the Sagamores of Penacook, 
 Pentucket, Squamfquot & Nuchawanick, are 
 Inclined to have y e Englifh Inhabitt amongft 
 us, as they are amongft our Countrymen in 
 the Maffachucets bay, by w ch means wee hope 
 in time to be ftrengthned againft our Enemyes the Tar- 
 ratens, who yearly doth us Damage; Likewife being Per- 
 fwaided y 1 itt will bee for the good of us and our Pofterety, 
 &cb To that end have att a generall meeting (att Squam¬ 
 fquot on Pifcataqua River,) wee the aforef 1 Sagamores w th 
 a univerfall Confent of our fubjedls, doe Covenant and 
 agree w th the Englifh as followeth: Now Know all men by 
 thefe Prefents that wee Paffaconaway, Sagamore of Pena¬ 
 cook, Runawitt, Sagamore of Pentucket, wahangnonawitt, 
 Sagamore of Squamfcott, and Rowls, Sagamore of New- 
 chawanick, for a Compitent Valluation in goods allready 
 Received in Coats, Shurts & vidtualls, and alfoe for y e 
 Confiderations aforef d doe, (according to y e Limits and 
 bounds hereafter granted,) give, grant, bargaine, fell, Releafe, 
 Rattafie and Confirme, unto John Whelewright of y e Maffa¬ 
 chucets 
 
144 The Wheelwright Deed. 
 
 chucets baye Late of England, A minifter of y e Gofpel, 
 Auguftin Story, Thom 8 Wite W m Wentworth and Thom 8 
 Levitt, all of y e Maffachucetts baye in New-England, to them 
 their he ires and Affignes forever, all that part of y e maine 
 Land bounded by the River of Pifcataqua and the River of 
 Merrimack, that is to fay, to begin att Newchewanack ffalls 
 in Pifcataqua River aforef d , and foe Downe f d River to 
 the fea, and foe alongft the fea fhore to merrimack River, 
 and foe up along f d River to the falls att Pentucett aforef d , 
 and from f d Pentucet ffalls upon a North weft Line twenty 
 Englifh miles into the woods, and from thence to Run 
 upon a Streight Line North Eaft & South Weft till meete 
 w th the maine Rivers that Runs down to Pentucket falls & 
 Newchewanack ffalls, and y e f d Rivers to be the bounds of 
 the f d Lands from the thwart Line or head Line to y e 
 aforef d ffalls, and y e maine Channell of each River from 
 Pentucket & Newchewanack ffalls to the maine fea to bee 
 the fide bounds, and the maine Sea betweene Pifcataqua 
 River And Merrimack River to be the Lower bounds, and 
 the thwart or head Line that runs from River to river to be 
 y e uper bound; Togeather w th all Hands w th in f d bounds, as 
 alfoe the lies of Sholes foe Called by the Englifh, togeather 
 w th all Proffitts, Advantages and Appurtenances whatfoever 
 to the f d tradf of Land belonging or in any wayes appef- 
 taineing; Referveing to our Selves, Liberty of makeing ufe 
 of our old Planting Land, as alfoe ffree Liberty of Hunting, 
 ffifhing and fowling; and itt is Likewife w th thefe Provifeos 
 ffollowing vizi 
 
 Firft, that y e f d John Wheelewright fliall w th in ten years 
 affter the date hereof fett Down w th a Company of Englifh 
 
 and 
 
The Wheelwright Deed. 145 
 
 and begin a Plantation att Squamfcot ffalls In Pifcataqua 
 River aforef d . 
 
 Secondly, that what other Inhabitants fhall Come & 
 Live on f (l Tradl of Land Amongft them from Time to 
 Time and att all times, fhall have and Enjoye the fame 
 benefitts as the f d Whelewright aforef d . 
 
 Thirdly, that If att any time there be a numb r of People 
 amongft them that have a mind to begin a new Plantation, 
 that they be Encouraged foe to doe, and that noe Plantation 
 Exceede in Lands above ten Englifh miles Squaire, or fuch 
 a Proportion as amounts to ten miles Squaire. 
 
 Fourthly, that y e aforef d granted Lands are to be Divided 
 into Townfhipps as People Increafe and appeare to Inhabitt 
 them, and that noe Lands fhall be granted to any pticular 
 pfon but what fhall be for a Townfhip, and what Lands 
 w th in a Townfhip is granted to any Perticuler Persons to 
 be by vote of y e major part of y e Enhabitants Legally and 
 ord r ly fettled in f d Townfhip. 
 
 Fifthly, for manageing and Regulateing and to avoide 
 Contentions amongft them, they are to be under the Gover¬ 
 nment of the Collony of the Maffachucetts, (their neighbours,) 
 and to obferve their Laws and ord rs untill they have a fettled 
 Goverment Amongft themfelves. 
 
 Sixthly, wee the aforef d Sagamores and our Subjects are 
 to have free Liberty (w th in the aforef d granted tradl of 
 Land) of ffifhing, fowling, hunting & Planting &c. 
 
 Sevently and Laftly every Townfhip w th in the aforefaid 
 Limits or tradt of Land that hereafter fhall be fettled, fhall 
 Paye to Paffaconaway our Cheife Sagamore that now is, & 
 to his fucceffors for ever, If Lawfully Demanded, one Coate 
 
 of 
 
 l 9 
 
146 The Wheelwright Deed. 
 
 of Trucking Cloath a year & every yeare for an Acknowl- 
 edgement, and alfoe fhall Paye to m r John Whelewright 
 aforef d , his heires and fucceffors forever, If Lawfully De¬ 
 manded, two bufhills of Indian Corne a yeare for and in Con- 
 fideration of faid Whelewrights great Paines & Care, as 
 alfoe for y e Charges he have been att to obtain this our grant 
 for himfelfe and thofe afore mentioned, and the Inhabitants 
 that fhall hereafter fettle In Townfhips on y e afore faid granted 
 Premifes; And wee the aforef d Sagamores, Paffaconaway, 
 Sagamore of Penecook, Runawitt, Sagamore of Pentucet, 
 Wahangnonawitt, Sagamore of Squaamfcott, and Rowls, 
 Sagamore of Newchewanack, doe by thefe Prefents Rattafie 
 and Confirme all y e afore granted and bargained Premifes 
 and Trad of Land aforef d , (excepting & Referveing as afore 
 Excepted & Referved & the Provifeos aforef d fullfilled,) 
 w th all the Meadow and Marfh grounds therein, Togeather 
 w th all the mines, Mineralls of What Kind or Nature foever, 
 with all the Woods, Timber and Timber Trees, Ponds, 
 Rivers, Lakes, runs of Water or Water Courfes thereunto 
 belonging, with all the ffreedome of ffifhinge, ffowlinge and 
 Hunting, as our felves with- all other benefitts, Proffitts, 
 Priviledges and Appurtenances Whatfoever thereunto, of 
 all and any Part of the faid Trad off Land belonging or in 
 any wayes Appertaineinge, unto him the faid John Whele¬ 
 wright, Auguftin Storer, Thomas Wite, William Went¬ 
 worth & Thomas Levitt and their heires forever as 
 aforef' 1 . To have and to hold y e fame As their owne 
 Proper Right and Intereft, without the Lead Difturbance, 
 molleftation or Troble of us, our heires, Execcutors and 
 Adminiftrators, to and with the faid John Whelewright, 
 
 Auguftin 
 
The Wheelwright Deed. 
 
 H 7 
 
 Auguftin Storer, Thomas Wite, William Wentworth and 
 Thomas Levitt, their heires, Execcutors, Adminiffcrators and 
 affignes and other the Englifh that fhall Inhabitt there And 
 theire heires and affignes forever, fhall Warrant Mainetaine 
 and Defend. In Wittnes whereof wee have Hereunto fett 
 our hands and feales the Sevententh day of May 1629, 
 And in the ffifth yeare of King Charles his Reigne over 
 England &ch 
 
 Signed, Sealed & Delivered 
 In Prefents off us: 
 
 Wadargascom 
 
 Mistonobite 
 
 mark 
 
 mark 
 
 John Oldham, 
 Sam ll Sharpe, 
 
 Passaconaway 
 
 Runawit 
 
 Wahangnonawit 
 
 Rowls 
 
 V 
 
 h 
 
 t 
 
 mark 
 
 mark 
 
 mark 
 
 Memoranda on y e Sevententh day of maye one thou- 
 fand fix hundred twenty & nine, In the ffifth year of the 
 Reigne of our Sovereigne Lord Charles King of England, 
 Scotland, ffrance & Ireland, Defend r of y e ffaith &c^ Wa¬ 
 hangnonawit, Sagamore of Squamfcot in Pifcataqua River, 
 did in behalfe of himfelfe and the other Sagamores afore¬ 
 mentioned then Prefent, Deliv r Quiett & Peaceable Poffef- 
 fion of all y e Lands mentioned in the w th in writen Deed, 
 unto the w th in named John Whelewright for the ends 
 w th in mentioned, in Prefents of us Walter Nele, Gover¬ 
 ned 
 
148 The Wheelwright Deed. 
 
 ner, Geo. Vaughan, ffacktor, and ambros Gibins, Trader, 
 for y e Company of Laconia; Rich d Vines, Governer, and 
 Rich d bonithan, Affiftant of y e Plantation of Sawco; Thom 8 
 Wiggin, agent, and Edward hilton, Steward of the Plant¬ 
 ation of Hiltons Point, and was figned fealed & Delivered 
 In our Prefents. 
 
 In Wittnefs whereof wee have hereunto fett our hands 
 the day & yeare above Written. 
 
 Rich d Vines, Walter Neale, 
 Rich® Bonithon, Geo. Vaughan, 
 Thom 8 Wiggin, Ambrose Gibbins. 
 Edward Hilton, 
 
 (From the Rockingham Registry.) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 HE Wheelwright Indian deed of 1629 has 
 been printed, with various approximations to¬ 
 wards correCtnefs, in 1 Belknap’s Hiftory of 
 New Hampfhire, Appendix, No. 1, in 1 Haz¬ 
 ard’s Hiftorical Collections, 271, and in 1 
 New Hampfhire Provincial Papers, 56. In none of thofe 
 works are the peculiar marks or totems of the fubfcribing 
 fagamores properly reprefented. The only publication in 
 which they have been corredtly given is Potter’s Hiftory of 
 Manchefter, N.H., 56c where the deed was alluded to, but 
 not inferted at length. The copy of the deed which is 
 included in the prefent volume has been carefully compared 
 with that in the regiftry of deeds of Rockingham County, 
 N.H., and is believed to conform to it in all particulars. 
 
 The Indian deeds of 1638 firft appeared in print (in a 
 permanent form at leaft) in 1 New Hampfhire Hiftorical 
 Society’s Collections, 147, from which they were tranfcribed 
 without alteration (except the omiffion of the totems) into 
 1 New Hampfhire Provincial Papers, 134-5. Thofe copies 
 contain fome inaccuracies, the moft ferious of which are 
 
 pointed 
 
I 50 Bibliography . 
 
 pointed out in note 47, in this volume. A very juft'idea 
 of the originals can be formed from the facsimiles here¬ 
 with given. 
 
 Of Wheelwright’s Faft-day Sermon, of 1637, two copies 
 exift in manufcript. One, which lacks the earlier pages, is 
 in the poffeffion of the Maffachufetts Hiftorical Society; 
 the other, which is complete, is in the office of the Secre¬ 
 tary of State of Maffachufetts. From the former a tran- 
 fcript (the miffing portion being fupplied from the latter) 
 has been printed, in its antique form, in the Proceedings 
 of the Maffachufetts Hiftorical Society for 1866-7, and in 
 the Hiftorical Magazine for April, 1867; and in modern 
 orthography in the Bofton Panoplift for July and Auguft 
 of the fame year. 
 
 No complete tranfcript from the copy in the Secretary’s 
 office has hitherto been printed. 
 
 The two copies, though in fubftance alike, yet prefent an 
 infinite number of trifling differences. It is not known 
 that one has any greater claims to authority than the other. 
 Neither is in the handwriting of Wheelwright, but both 
 poffefs every intrinfic mark of having been made at or near 
 the time when the original was delivered. The one in the 
 Secretary’s office appears to have been the work of a perfon 
 better educated, and certainly more accuftomed to the pen, 
 than was the fcribe of the Society’s copy. As well on 
 account of the fuperior character of the manufcript, as in 
 order that both copies fhould be acceffible in printed form, 
 that in the Secretary’s office has been followed here; the 
 few evident clerical omiffions being fupplied from the 
 printed copy of the Hiftorical Society’s manufcript. 
 
 Of 
 
Bibliography . I ^ I 
 
 Of Mercurius Americanus only a Tingle edition was pub- 
 lifhed. It is reproduced in this volume with remarkable 
 fidelity. RefpeCling its authorfhip, it is furprifing that there 
 fhould have been any queftion. The Rev. Dr. George E. 
 Ellis, when he prepared the Life of Anne Hutchinfon for 
 Sparks’s American Biography, doubted, however, if it were 
 the production of the Rev. John Wheelwright; and both 
 Mr. Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary, and Mr. Felt, in 
 his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, attribute the work to a fuppofitive 
 Ton of Wheelwright. Perhaps the. difficulty was caufed by the 
 circumftance that upon the title of Mercurius Americanus 
 the name of the writer appears as John Wheelwright, junior. 
 But to the dedication are fubfcribed the initials, and to the 
 introduction the full name, of John Wheelwright, without 
 the pofifix. The word “junior” may have been added 
 upon the title-page by miftake, or becaufe there was an 
 older perfon in England bearing the fame name. But the 
 intrinfic evidence, that the American John Wheelwright 
 compofed the work, Teems irrefiftible. The learning and 
 the logic, the perfonal feeling and the knowledge of aCtors 
 and events, all indicate his handiwork, and could have 
 emanated from no other individual. 
 
 Wheelwright’s laft Will is not known to have been before 
 publifhed, but is thought to poffefs fufficient interefi to 
 warrant its introduction here. Some notes would have 
 perhaps been added, in relation to the tefiator’s immediate 
 defendants, had the editor not been early apprifed that 
 a hiftory of the Wheelwright family was in preparation, 
 with which he had no difpofition to interfere. 
 

A 
 
 SERMON 
 
 Preached at Boston in New England vpon a Fast Day 
 
 THE XVI th OF JANUARY 1636, 
 
 BY M* JOHN WHEELEWRIGHT. 
 
 Math : the 9. 15. 
 
 And Jefus faid vnto them, can the Children of the bridechamber mourne, as 
 long as the Bridegroome is w th them ? but the dayes will come, when the Bride- 
 groome fhall be taken from them & then they fhall faft. 
 
 UR bleffed Lord & Sauio r Jefus (Thrift, though 
 he was the moft innocent that euer was, fo that 
 they w ch hated him, hated him w th out a caufe, 
 yet notw th ftanding the wicked world, they 
 were euer taking exceptions, both againft his 
 fayings & doings. 
 
 In the beginning of this chapter, they brought vnto him 
 a man ficke of the palfey, lying vpon a bedd, Jefus feeing 
 their faith, faid vnto him, fonne be of good cheare, thy 
 fynnes be forgiuen thee, the Scribes fay w th in themfelues 
 that he blafphemeth, (Thrift perceiuing their thoughts, 
 anfwered for himfelfe, & telleth them, he cold as eafily 
 
 forgiue 
 
 20 
 
154 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 forgiue fynnes, as reftore this man to health; (Thrift goeth 
 from thence & goeth to the receipt of cuftome, & calleth 
 Mathew the Publican, & he receaueth him into his houfe 
 & maketh a feaft, Chrift fitteth downe w th Publicans & 
 fynners, the Pharifees take exceptions, & tell his Difciples, 
 that their Matter eateth w th Publicans & fynners, & Chrift 
 hearing of it, anfwereth for himfelfe & telleth them, they 
 were fit fubiedls to worke vpon, he iuftifieth the vngodly. 
 thofe that are iuftified by Chrift muft not looke to be faued 
 by facrifice, but by the mercy of Chrift. A little after the 
 Difciples of John were inftigated by the Scribes & Phar¬ 
 ifees Mar: 2. 18, and they put this queftion vnto him, Why 
 they & the Pharifees faft often ? and the Difciples of Chrift 
 faft not ? And Chrift anfwered in my text. And thus you 
 fee the coherence & dependance of thefe words. 
 
 The text confifteth of two argum ts , whereby Chrift did 
 prooue & fliew, that is was not for his Difciples to faft. 
 The firft is taken from the remoouall of any iuft caufe of 
 falling w ch they had for the p r fent. The fecond argum 1 is 
 taken from a pofition or putting a iuft caufe of faft they 
 fhold haue hereafter, and that was the remooving Chrift 
 from them. 
 
 I will not ftand to fhew the difference of fafts, w ch are 
 either conftrayned, civill, miraculous, dayly or religious : but 
 the faft here fpoken of in my text, is of the laft fort, and 
 mourning is added in my text, becaufe falling & mourning 
 go together. Joel: 2. and where it is here faid, the children 
 of the bridechamber cannot faft, it is to be vnderftood an 
 impoffibility of feafonablenes, they cannot do it feafonably. 
 
 The 
 
155 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 The text contayneth in it two poynts, but I wrap all vp 
 in one poynt of Dodfrine, and that is this. That the only 
 caufe of the faffing of true beleeuers is the abfence 
 of Chrift. 
 
 Either Chrift he is p r fent w th his people, or els abfent 
 from his people; if he be p r fent w th his people, then they 
 haue no caufe to faft: therefore it muft be his abfence that 
 is the true caufe of faffing, when he is taken away then 
 they muff faff ; If we take a view of all the faffs, that haue 
 beene kept either in the old or new-Teftament, we fhall 
 find the faffs that haue beene kept by true beleeuers, haue 
 had this for the ground of them, the abfence of the Lord, 
 what was the reafon why the people of Ifraell kept a faff, 
 Judges the 20. & 1 Sam: 7 and Jehofephat & all Juda 
 2 Cron: 20 and the people of Ifraell after they came out 
 of captivity, Nehemiah 9 And the church of Antioch, 
 Adts 13. and Paul & Barnabas, A6fs. 14. was it not becaufe 
 they wanted the Lord to protedf, defend, pardon, & affiff ? 
 where there is mencon made of faffing in the Scripture, 
 you fhall likewife find mencon made of turning vnto the 
 Lord, and the Prophett Joel when he fpeaketh of a faff, he 
 biddeth them turne to the Lord: whereby it is evident, that 
 the reafon why Gods people do faff, is becaufe there is a 
 diffance betweene them & the Lord. 
 
 Reaf: 1. The firff reafon is, when Jefus Chrift is abound- 
 antly p r fent he doth make a fupply of whatfoeuer the chil¬ 
 dren of God can pcure in this extraordinary way of faffing: 
 Wee know that vnder the captivity the people of God they 
 
 faffed 
 
156 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 failed exceedingly, they kept a faft in the fourth moneth 
 .5. 7. 10. and now the Lord pmifeth a reftauration of Jeru- 
 falem, that is efpecially accomplifhed 'in the kingdome of 
 Chrift, when he fhall raigne ouer his, and he faith, in this 
 day he will turne the faft of the fourth moneth .5. 7. 10. into 
 ioyfull gladnes & chearefull feafts Zach: 8. There is a 
 prophecy of a glorious Church, w ch the Lord will haue 
 vnder the new teftament, & efpecially when the Jewes 
 come to be converted vnto God, and there is a pmife that 
 the Lord will dwell w th them, & they fhall be his people & 
 he will be w th them, and the effedl of it is, all teares fhall be 
 wiped from their eyes: Reu: 21.4. and the fame is pphecied 
 in Ifay 65. 19. fo farr as Chrift is p r fent he taketh away all 
 caufe of mourning & weeping, and in his pTence is fulnes 
 of ioy, and at his right hand there is pleafures for evermore. 
 Ps : 16. 11. 
 
 Reaf: 2. The fecond reafon is, becaufe when the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift cometh once to be abfent, then cometh in mat¬ 
 ter of mourning & failing, all mifery followeth the abfence 
 of Chrift, as you fee darknes followeth the abfence of the 
 funne, the Lord leaueth Hezekiah 2 Kings. 4 20. 12. 13. 
 and then what followeth vpon it, he finneth exceedingly in 
 fhewing the Ambaffadors the treafure in his houfe. The 
 Lord departeth from his Difciples, & his Difciples leaue 
 him & forfake him. John: 16. so when it pleafeth the 
 Lord to abfent himfelfe, then cometh in caufe of mourning, 
 and this hath beene the reafon that the feruants of God 
 haue wonderfully defired the. p r fence of the Lord. Mofes 
 defired Gods pTence, or els never to go vp, and fo Dauid 
 
 Ps: 
 
Fast-day Sermon. 157 
 
 Ps: 27. 9. becaufe he knew very well, if God were abfent 
 from him, then mifery wold follow. 
 
 Vfe 1. The firft vfe may ferue to teach vs a reafon, why 
 thofe that are the children of God vpon their firft acquaint¬ 
 ance they get w th the Lord, they are not much addidfed 
 vnto faffing, the Lord doth not cary them that way; the 
 time when Chriff was vpon the earth, he being p r fent w th his 
 Difciples, he was euer & anon inftrudfing of them, when 
 they were in dobt of any thing he telleth them ; and if they 
 cold not anfwere many dobts, then Chriff came & anfwered 
 for them, and if at any tyme they were in any danger, then 
 Chriff comforteth them, and was euer & anon w th them. 
 And thus the Lord dealeth w th his children fpiritually in 
 regard of his fpirituall p r fence, when Chriff firft cometh to 
 breake into the foules of his, he is wonderfully pleafant 
 vnto them, and euer & anon inftrudfing of them & comfort¬ 
 ing of them, yea, the Lord heareth them before they pray, 
 or when they are a fpeaking & doth exceedingly folace 
 them; but afterwards it may be the faynts of God may 
 come to be left & forfaken of the Lord, either becaufe the 
 children of their mother is angry w th them, & make them * 
 keepe the vyneyard, thofe vnder a covenant of works, mak- 
 eth them trauaile vnder the burthen of that Covenant, and 
 fo maketh the Lord abfent himfelfe from them, and then 
 Chriff cometh to depart from them, & then they faff; or, 
 els whileff they grow carnall & fall into a fpirituall fleepe 
 Chriff leaues them. Cant: 5. 6. 
 
 2. Secondly, from hence we are taught how to cary & 
 behaue ourfelues now vpon this day of humiliacon, there 
 
 are 
 
158 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 are divers evills w ch wee may happily defire fhold be re- 
 moued, both from forrayne Nations & from this place where 
 we live, and divers good things we defire fhold be pcured 
 both for them & ourfelues. What is the courfe we muft take ? 
 muff we efpecially looke after the remouing thofe euill things, 
 & pcuring thofe good things? this an hipocrite will do, fee 
 the example of Ahab. 1 Kings 21: 27. 28. 29. and the Lord 
 will grant the defire of hipocrites: in this cafe, fee 78 Pf: 
 34. for there the hipocriticall people of the Jewes, in their 
 mifery fought the Lord, and the Lord being full of compaf- 
 fion, he forgiueth their iniquities & deftroyeth them not, in 
 the 38 verfe of that pfalme, muft we then do as they did ? 
 by no meanes: what muft we do then ? we muft looke 
 firft, at the Lord Jefus Chrift, & moft defire now that Jefus 
 Chrift may be receaued in other Nations & other places, and 
 may be more receaued amongft our felues, we muft turne 
 vnto the Lord, & then he will turne all into a right frame; 
 when many enimyes came againft Jehofophat, what doth 
 he ? he goeth & feeketh the Lord & his eyes are towards 
 the Lord. 2 Cron. 20. 12. fo the children of God are a 
 company, a generation that feeke the Lord & his ftrength 
 & face euermore, Pf: 105. 4. they do not only feeke the 
 gifts of his fpiritt, but the Lord himfelfe, they doe not feeke 
 after ftrength to be receiued from the Lord only, but they 
 feeke after the ftrength that is in the Lord, they do not 
 feeke only to know the Lord by fruits & effedls, but looke 
 vpon the Lord w th a direct eye of faith they feeke his face, 
 and this is the generation of feekers fpoken of. Pf: 24. 6. 
 therefore if we meane to pcure good things & remooue euill 
 
 things, 
 
Fast-day Sermon. 150 
 
 things, this will be our courfe, feeing the abfence of the 
 Lord is the caufe of faffing, and the end of our faffing muff 
 be our turning to the Lord, & he will turne to vs, Joel. 2. 
 and thus the Lord will turne all things for the good of his, 
 Rom: 8. 32. if we get the Lord Jefus Chriff, we fhall haue 
 all things. 
 
 3. Thirdly from hence we are taught a reafon, why thofe 
 that do not know the Lord Jefus, they are vfually giuen 
 moff vnto faffing, not that I condemne faffing by any meanes ; 
 but this is it, many tymes thofe that are the leaff acquainted 
 w th the Lord Jefus are giuen moff of all to faffing, the Pap- 
 iffs are giuen much to faffing & punifh themfelues by whip¬ 
 ping, and the people in Captivity they weare not acquainted 
 w th the Lord, & fo did not faff to the Lord. Zach: 7. 5. 6. and 
 yet appoynted more faffs then the Lord appoynted, the 4. 5. 8. 
 10 moneth, and the Pharifees faffed twice a weeke Luk. 18. 
 12. they want the Lord Jefus Chriff, & they muff haue fome- 
 thing to reft vpon & muff clofe w th fome thing, and be- 
 caufe they want Chriff they faff. This for the firff vfe of 
 inftrucebn. 
 
 Vfe 2. The fecond vfe is of exhortation, it ferueth to ex¬ 
 hort vs all in the feare of God to haue a fpeciall care, that 
 we part not w th the Lord Jefus Chriff, if we part w th Chriff 
 we part w th our lives, for Chriff is our life faith Paul, Col: 7. 4, 
 the Lord Jefus Chriff is not only the author of life, but is 
 the feat of the life of Gods children, and all their life is de¬ 
 rived from Chriff, for he is the roote, & he convayeth life to 
 the branches, and thofe that are the children of God, they live 
 by the faith of the fonne of God: Gal: 2. 20. they haue faith to 
 
 lay 
 
160 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 lay hold on the fonne of God, and the fonne of God convay-^ 
 eth life vnto them ; therefore if we part w th Chrift, we part w th 
 our lives, therefore it ftandeth vs all in hand, to haue a 
 care Chrift be not taken from vs, if we belong to the eleccon 
 of grace, Chrift cannot be taken wholy away from vs, yet he 
 may be taken away in fome degree, therefore let vs haue a 
 care to keepe the Lord Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Obiedt: It maybe here demanded, what courfe fhall we 
 take to keepe the Lord Jefus Chrift? 
 
 Anfw: The way we muft take, if fo be we will not haue 
 the Lord Jefus Chrift taken from vs, is this, we muft all 
 p r pare for a fpirituall combate, we muft put on the whole 
 armour of God, Ephes : 6. [i i,] and muft haue our loynes girt 
 & be redy to fight; behold the bed that is Solomons, there 
 is threefcore valient men about it, valient men of Ifraell, 
 euery one hath his fword in his hand & being expert in 
 warre, & hath his fword girt on his thigh, becaufe of feare 
 in the night, if we will not fight for the Lord Jefus Chrift, 
 Chrift may come to be furprifed. Solomon lyeth in his bed, 
 
 & there is fuch men about the bed of Solomon, & they 
 watch ouer Solomon & will not fuffer Solomon to be taken 
 away, and who is this Solomon, but the Lord Jefus Chrift, 
 and what is the bed, but the Church of true beleeuers, and 
 who are thofe valient men of Ifraell, but all the children 
 of God, they ought to fhew themfelues valient, they fhold 
 haue their fwords redy, they muft fight, & fight w th fpirituall 
 weapons, for the weapons of our warfare are not carnall but 
 fpirituall 2 Cor, 10. 4. & therefore wherefoeuer we Hue, if 
 we wold haue the Lord Jefus Chrift to be aboundantly 
 
 p r fent 
 
Fast-day Sermon. 161 
 
 p r fent w th vs, we muft all of vs p r pare for battell & coifie out 
 againft the enimyes of the Lord, & if we do not ftrive, thofe 
 vnder a covenant of works will p r vaile, Wee muft haue a 
 fpeciall care therefore to fliew our felues couragious, All 
 the valient men of Dauid & all the men of Ifraell, Barak 
 & Deborah & Jael, all muft out & fight for Chrift, curfe ye 
 Meroz, becaufe they came not out to helpe the Lord ag* the 
 mighty. Jud: 5. 23. therefore if we will keepe the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift and his p r fence & power amongft vs, we muft fight. 
 
 That thefe things may be the better cleared, we muft vn- 
 derftand & call to our confideracons, that as foone as euer 
 Chrift was borne into the world Herod & all Jerufalem was 
 trobled Math: 2. and if the Lord had not p r vented him, 
 he fought to deftroy him, & when Chrift Jefus came once to 
 fhew himfelfe & to declare himfelfe & exercife his publike 
 miniftry, the world fetteth themfelues ag* him to intrap him, & 
 they labor to kill him, & neuer left till they had crucified the 
 Lord of glory, for this was done by Herod & Pontius Pilate: 
 A6ts. 4. and when they haue crucified him, that wold 
 not feme the turne, but he being buried, they came & made 
 it fure & fealeth the ftone, & fetteth watch & ward, & wold 
 haue buried the Lord for euer, & wold haue kept him eter¬ 
 nally in the grave; but he rayfed himfelfe by his power; and 
 fince Chrifts refurreccon & afcenfion all the enimyes of the 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, they euermore do it fpiritually, and as * 
 the buried the Lord Jefus Chrift & labored to keepe him 
 there, fo fpiritually they burie Chrift, and they do not only 
 labor to do this, that are Pagonifh, but the Antichriftian. Why 
 do the heathen rage & the people imagine a vayne thing: 
 
 Ps: 2. 1. 
 
 21 
 
162 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 Ps: 2. i. what people are they, the people of God, the people 
 of the Jewes, this people do imagine to take away the Lord 
 Jefus Christ, and what hath beene the pradtife of all Anti- 
 chriftian fpiritts, but only to take away the Chrift, the sonne 
 of the living God, & put in falfe Chrifts, & to deceaue 
 the eledt, if it were poffible, Math: 24. 24. for what is Anti- 
 chrift, but one being againft Chrift, and for Chrift, his being 
 for Chrift, is being ag* Chrift, becaufe he wold put one in the 
 * roome of Chrift: therefore if we wold keepe the Lord J efus 
 Chrift amongft vs, we muft ftand vpon our gard & watch 
 ouer the Lord Jefus Chrift, as the valient men of Ifraell 
 watched ouer Solomon. 
 
 Obiedt: It may be demaunded what courfe muft we take 
 to p r vaile in this combate, for fight we muft? 
 
 Anfw: If we wold p r vayle thorough the ftrength of the 
 Lord (for of our felues we can do nothing) then we muft 
 firft contend for the faith once delifted to the faynts. Jude. 
 3. that is the Gofpell, it was but once delified for the fub- 
 ftance, though many tymes in regard of the manner, we 
 muft therefore ftriue for the faith of the Gofpell, & ftriue to¬ 
 gether for the Gofpell: Phil: 1. 17. if that the Light once be 
 taken away, & darknes come vpon the face of the Church, 
 then we may be eayfily deluded, and a falfe Chrift put in 
 true Chrifts roome. 
 
 Obiedt: It may be demaunded, what is the Gofpell ? 
 
 Anfw: It is the fame glad tydings the Lord fent into the 
 world of a Savio r that is borne vnto vs, euen Jefus Chrift 
 the Lord, this fame Gofpell is that heauenly dodtrine, that 
 was pphecied of before by the Prophet concerning Jefus 
 
 Chrift 
 
163 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 Chrift the Lorch to be made of the feed of Dauid. The 
 Gofpell is a divine heauenly fupernaturall dodlrine, contayn- 
 ing in it the revelation of Jefus Chrift. to preach the 
 Gofpell is to preach Chrift, and the Apoftle faith Gal: 6. 14. 
 God forbidd that I fhold glory in any thing but in the croffe 
 of Chrift: fo that the Gofpell is fuch a dodlrine as doth hold 
 forth Jefus Chrift & nothing but Chrift, when fuch a doc¬ 
 trine is holden forth as doth reveale Jefus Chrift to be 
 our wifdome, our righteoufnes, our fandtificacon & our re¬ 
 demption 1 Cor. 1. 30. when all is taken away from the 
 creature, & all giuen to Chrift, fo that neither before our 
 converfion nor after, we are able to put forth one adt of 
 true faving fpirituall wifdome, but we muft haue it put forth 
 from the Lord Jefus Chrift, w th whom we are made one ; and 
 fuch a dodlrine holden forth as declares, that we are not 
 able to do any worke of fandlificacfin, further then we are 
 adled by the Lord, nor able to pcure our iuftificacon, but 
 it muft be the Lord Jefus Chrift that muft apply himfelfe 
 & his righteoufnes to vs; and we are not able to redeeme 
 our felues from the leaft euill, but he is our redemption; 
 when Chrift is thus holden forth to be all in all, all in the 
 roote, all in the branch, all in all, this is the Gofpell, this is 
 that fountayne open for the inhabitants of Juda & Jerufalem 
 for fmne & for vncleanenes: Zach: 13. 1. and this is the 
 well, of w ch the wells vnder the old Teftament were certayne 
 types, this fame well muft be kept open, if the Philiftines fill 
 it w th earth, w th the earth of their owne invencons, thofe that 
 are the feruants of Ifaack true beleeuers, the feruants of the 
 Lord, muft open the wells agayne, this is the light that 
 
 holdeth 
 
164 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 holdeth forth a great light, that lighteneth euery one, that 
 cometh into the world Joh: 1. 9. and if we meane to keepe 
 Chrift, we muft hold forth this light. 
 
 Obiedt: It may be demaunded, is there nothing to be 
 holden forth in poynt of iuftificacon, but only the righteouf- 
 nes of the Lord Jefus Chrift, may there not be a reuelacon 
 of fome worke of fandtificacon, & from that, may not we 
 be caried to Chrift Jefus, and fo come to beleeue in the 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, muft Chrift be all in poynt of iuftifi¬ 
 cacon ? 
 
 Anfw: Truly both in poynt of iuftificacon, & the knowl- 
 edg of this our iuftificacon by faith, there muft be noth¬ 
 ing in the world reuealed but Chrift Jefus, none other 
 dodlrine vnder heauen is able to iuftify any, but merely the 
 revelation of the Lord Jefus Chrift, I am not afhamed of 
 the Gofpell faith Paul, for it is the power of God to fal- 
 uacon, 1 Rom: 16. how? for in it, the righteoufnes of God 
 is revealed: fo it cold not be a dodtrine w th power to convert 
 a foule if the righteoufnes of the Lord were not revealed: 
 therefore when the Lord is pleafed to convert any foule 
 to him, he revealeth not to him fome worke, & from that 
 worke, carieth him to Chrift, but there is nothing revealed 
 but Chrift, when Chrift is lifted vp, he draweth all to him, 
 that belongeth to the eledtion of grace; if men thinke to be 
 faved, becaufe the fee fome worke of fandlificaeon in them, 
 as hungring & thirfting & the like: if they be faued, they 
 are faued w th out the Gofpell. No, no, this is a covenant of 
 works, for in the covenant of grace, nothing is revealed 
 but Chrift for our righteoufnes; and fo for the knowledge of 
 
 our 
 
Fast-day Sermon. 165 
 
 our iuflificacbn by faith, nothing is revealed to the foule but 
 only Chrift & his righteoufnes freely giuen, it was the very 
 grace of God that appeared, that fame apparition whereby 
 the foule cometh to know that he is iuftified, the obiedt of 
 it is Chrift freely giuen, when the louing kindnes of Chrift 
 appeared 3 Tit: 5. not by the works of righteoufnes, they 
 are layd afide, and the Lord revealeth only to them the right¬ 
 eoufnes of himfelfe giuen freely to the foule; if men haue 
 revealed to them fome worke of righteoufnes in them felues, 
 as loue to the brethren & the like, & herevpon they come to 
 be affured they are in a good eftate, this is not the affurance 
 of faith, for faith hath Chrift revealed for the obiedt, therefore 
 [if] the affurance of ones iuftification be by faith as a worke, 
 it is not Gofpell. 
 
 Obiedt: It may further be demaunded, muft not any fanc- 
 tificacon by the Gofpell be preffed vpon thofe that are the 
 children of God, but only as it cometh fro Jefus Chrift the 
 roote, & as he worketh it in thofe, that are true beleeuers? 
 
 Anfvv: Not in the Gofpell. Sandtificacbon muft be preached 
 no other way, all dutyes of fandtificacbn preffed vpon the 
 children of God muft be vrged, as w th all it be declared that 
 they grow from the roote Chrift Jefus. Worke out yo r fal- 
 uation w th feare & trembling, Phil: 2. 12. it is he that work¬ 
 eth in you both to will & do of his good pleafure; this is the 
 covenant of grace, the Lord Jefus will be our fandtificacbn, 
 & worke fandtificacbn in vs & for vs. A new hart will I giue 
 you, & a new fpiritt, and they fhall walke in my ftatutes & 
 you fhall keepe my iudgm ts & do them. Ezek: 36. 26. 27. 
 I will forgiue yo r finnes, & write my Law in yo r harts & in¬ 
 ward 
 
166 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 ward parts; [If works be foe preffed as] if a beleeuer had 
 power in him felfe to worke, it killeth the fpirit of Gods chil¬ 
 dren, put any worke of fandtificacon in a legall frame & it 
 killeth him, the Law killeth, but it is the fpiritt that quickens, 
 that is the Gofpell in w ch the fpiritt of God is convayed, when 
 God fpeaketh he fpeaketh the words of eternall life: [& Peter 
 fath to Ch, whether final we goe, for w th y e is y e wordes of 
 eternal life,] therefore ought no works of fandtificacon to 
 be vrged vpon the feru ts of God, fo as if they had a power 
 to do them, it will kill the foule of a man, & it oppreffeth the 
 poore foules of the faynts of God ; Chrift faith, Math: 11. 28, 
 come vnto mee all ye that labor & are heauy laden, and 
 as long as we are abfent from Chrift we are heauy laden; but 
 when Chrift pulleth vs to himfelfe & takes our burthen vpon 
 him, then we find eafe; Learne of me for I am meeke & 
 lowly, and you fliall find reft to yo r foules, Chrift was fo 
 meeke & lowly, as content to receaue all from the father, 
 and fo muft we be meeke & lowly, and content to receaue all 
 from Chrift; if the dutyes be preffed any other way, they will 
 be burthens, that neither wee, nor our fathers were able to 
 beare; therefore if we meane to keepe the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, wee muft keepe open this fountayne & hold forth 
 this light, if there [be] a night of darknes, the feare (faith 
 the Spirit of God) is in the night. 
 
 2. The fecond adtion we muft performe & the fecond way 
 we muft take is, When enimyes to the truth oppofe the 
 wayes of God, we muft lay load vpon them, we muft kill 
 them w th the word of the Lord, Hof: 6. 5. the Lord hath 
 giuen true beleeuers power ouer the Nations, & they fliall 
 
 t 
 
 breake 
 
167 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 breake them in peeces as fhivered w th a rod of yron; and 
 what rod of yron is this, but the word of the Lord, and 
 fuch honor haue all his faynts. Ps: 149. 9. the Lord hath 
 made vs of threfhing inftrum ts w th teeth & we muft beate 
 the hills as chaffe, Ifay. 41. 15. therefore in the feare of 
 God, handle the fword of the fpiritt, the word of God, for it 
 is a two edged fword, and Hebr: 4. 12, this word of God 
 cutteth men to the hart. 
 
 Obiedt: It may be obiedted that there will be little hope 
 of vidtorie for the feru ts of God, becaufe the children of God 
 are but few, and thofe that are enimyes to the Lord & his 
 truth are many ? 
 
 Anfw: True, I muft confeffe & acknowledge the faynts 
 of God are few, they are but a little flocke, and thofe that 
 are enimyes to the Lord, not onely Pagonifh, but Antichrif- 
 tian, and thofe that run vnder a covenant of works are very 
 ftrong: but be not afrayd, the battle is not y ors but Gods, 
 Yee know the fpeech rendred by the Prophet when fo many 
 came againft Jofua. Jof: 23. 10. one of you fhall chafe a 
 thoufand; and if we fhold go in our owne ftrength we 
 fhold be fwallowed vp many a time may Ifrael fay, if it 
 had not beene for the Lord, we had beene fwallowed vp, if 
 it were not for the Lord of hoafts, there were little hope of 
 p r vayling by the faynts, but out of the mouthes of babes & 
 fucklings, God ordayneth him prayfe, to ftill the enimyes, the 
 Lord will magnifie his name in the faynts, & though Gods 
 people be but few, yet it is the Lord of hoafts, that God of 
 heauen & earth, that layed the foundacon vpon the feas, 
 & in comparifon of whom, all the Nations are nothing, 
 
 Jehouah 
 
168 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 Jehouah is his name that great God, it is Michaell that 
 fighteth w th the Angells; therefore though the people be 
 few, yet it is all one for God to faue w th many or thofe that 
 haue no ftrength. 
 
 Obieft: It will be obiedled, that divers of thofe who are 
 opofite to the wayes of grace & free coven 1 of grace, they 
 are wondrous holy people, therefore it fhold feeme to be a 
 very vncharitable thing in the feru ts of God to condemne 
 fuch, as if fo be they were enimyes to the Lord & his 
 truth, whileft they are fo exceeding holy & ftridt in their 
 way. 
 
 Anfw: Brethren, thofe vnder a covenant of works, [y e ] 
 more holy they are, the greater enimyes they are to Chrift, 
 Paul acknowledged! as much in Gal: [i] he faith he was 
 zealous acording to the Law & the more he went in a legall 
 way, the more he perfecuted the wayes of grace 13 Adts. 14. 
 50. where all the devout people were fuch, as did expell 
 Paul out of Antioch & out of all the coafts, It maketh no 
 matter how feemingly holy men be, according to the Law; 
 if they do not know the worke of grace & wayes of God, 
 they are fuch as truft to their owne righteoufnes, they fhall 
 dye fayth the Lord. Ezek: 33. 13. what a curfed righteouf¬ 
 nes is that, that thrufteth out the righteoufnes of Chrift, the 
 Apoftle fpeaketh, they fhall transforme themfelues into an 
 Angell of Light, 2 Cor. 11. 14. therefore it maketh no mat¬ 
 ter how holy men be that haue no acquaintance w th Chrift. 
 Seeft thou a man wife in his owne conceit, more hope their 
 is of a foole then of him. Pro: 26. 12. we know (through 
 the mercy of God) affoone as Chrift cometh into the foule, 
 
 he 
 
Fast-day Sermon . 169 
 
 he maketh the creature nothing: therefore if men be fo 
 holy & fo ftridt & zealous, & truft to themfelues & their 
 righteoufnes, & knoweth not the wayes of grace, but oppofe 
 free grace ; fuch as thefe, haue not the Lord Jefus Chrift, 
 therefore fet vpon fuch w th the fword of the Spiritt, the word 
 of God. 
 
 Obiedt: It will be obiedted, that the children of God 
 fhold be a meeke generation, it is an exhortation the Apoftle 
 giueth. Jam: 3. 13. 
 
 Anfvv: ffor to fight couragioufly & in the caufe of God, 
 and to be meeke, they are divers, but not oppofits, they 
 may ftand very well together: You know when Steven was 
 of a meeke frame, for the Spirit of God was in him, & he 
 was of a calme quiet frame & difpofition, and yet you fee 
 what a vehement fpeech Steven made to the enimyes of 
 God, Adis. 7. 51. it cut them to the very hart, yet Steven 
 a meeke man, he prayed for his enimyes in a meeke frame 
 of fpiritt, & yet vehement to thofe that oppofe the wayes 
 of God. Chrift was meeke, I am fure you will fay, & he 
 faith, learne of mee for I am meeke & lowly, yet when he 
 cometh to thofe that did oppofe the wayes of grace, you 
 are the children of the divell, John. 8. 44. and in the 23 
 Math: 23. Woe be to you Scribes Pharifees hipocrites, a 
 vehement fpeech he vfeth, yet Chrift the meekeffc man that 
 euer was, therefore you may eafily beate downe thofe holds, 
 by the fword of the Spiritt, the word of God. 
 
 Obiedt: This will caufe a combuftion in the Church & 
 comon wealth, may be obiedted. 
 
 Anfvv: I muft confeffe & acknowledge it will do fo, but 
 
 what 
 
 22 
 
170 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 what then ? did not Chrift come to fend fire vpon the earth, 
 Luke 12. 49. and what is it, that it were alredy kindled, he 
 defireth it were kindled, and it is the defire of the Spirit 
 & of the faynts that this fire were kindled ; is not this that 
 that is pphefied of, Ifay 9. 5. This battle betweene Michaell 
 & his Angells, the battle betweene Gods people & thofe 
 that are not, thofe battles of Chriftians muff be burning, 
 and what is it, but the burning of the word of God accom¬ 
 panied by the Holy Ghoft, this is pphefied of in Mai: 4. 1. 
 the day fhall come that fliall burne like an oven & all that 
 do wickedly fliall be ftubble, and this is the terrible day of the 
 Lord, when the gofpell is thus held forth, this is a terrible 
 day to all thofe that do not obey the Gofpell of Chriffc; 
 Brethren, we know that the whore muff be burnt, Reu: 18. 
 
 8. it is not fliaving of her head & paring her nayles & 
 changing her rayment, that will serue the turne, but this 
 whore muff be burnt. Many fpeake of the externall burning 
 of Rome, but I am fure there muff be a Spirituall burning, 
 and. that burning by the fire of the Gofpell; This way muff 
 Antichriff be confumed. 2 Thef: 2. why fliold we not 
 further this fire, who knoweth not how foone thofe Jewes 
 may be converted? Reu: 18 & 19 chap: after the burning 
 of the whore followes, Alleluia, a prayfing of the Lord in 
 Hebrew; wee know not how foone the conilfion of the Jewes 
 may come, and if they come, they muff come by the down¬ 
 fall of Antichriff, and if we take him away, we muff burne 
 him ; therefore neuer feare combuftions & burnings. 
 
 Obiedt: Laftly it may be obiedted againft thofe combats 
 & fightings, if Miniffcers & chriftians be fo downeright & lo 
 
 ffrive . 
 
Fast-day Sermon. I 7 1 
 
 ftrive & contend, & holde forth the word of God w th fuch 
 violence & power, this will be a meanes to difcourage thofe 
 that are weake Chriftians, & do them a great deale of 
 hurt. 
 
 Anfw: Let the Gofpell be neuer fo cleerely held forth, 
 it neuer hurteth the children of God, no, it doth them a great 
 deale of good, that fame very fire of the word, that burneth 
 vp all vnbeleeuers, & all vnder a Coven* of works, that Gof¬ 
 pell doth exceedingly cleare Gods children. Mai: 4. 2. then 
 the fonne of righteoufnes fliall come w th healing in his wings, 
 and in the 3 Math: Chrift when he handleth the Gofpell, 
 he layeth the axe to the roote of the tree, and what followeth 
 herevpon, he will purge his floare, & cutteth downe all 
 hipocrites, and thofe that build vpon any thing befids Chrift, 
 and then he will purge the Church, and gather the wheate 
 into the garner, true beleeuers will come in, vnbeleeuers & 
 hipocrites chaffe will be burnt vp : fo the fame Gofpell that 
 is a word of terror to the wicked men, is a great comfort 
 to all that beleeue in the Lord Jefus Chrift. 
 
 3. Thirdly, if we meane to keepe the Lord Jefus Chrift, 
 we muft be willing to fuffer any thing, You know in the 12 
 Reu : 11. the faynts of God overcame, and over came by the 
 blood of the Lambe, that is by the Lord Jefus Chrift, & by 
 the word of the teftimony, that is the Gofpell, and they loued 
 not their lives vnto the death, that is, if we will overcome 
 we muft not loue our lives, but be willing to be killed like 
 fheepe; it is impoffible to hold out the truth of God w th 
 externall peace & quietnes, if we will p r vaile, if we be called, 
 we muft be willing to lay downe our lives, & fliall ouercome 
 
 by 
 
172 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 by fo doing; Sampfon flew more at his death, then in his 
 life, and fo we may p r vaile more by our deathes, then by our 
 lives. 
 
 4. ffourthly, if we will keepe Chrift, we muft confider, 
 that we cannot do any of this, by any flrength that is in our 
 felues, but we muft confider that it is the Lord that muft 
 helpe vs & adt in vs, & worke in vs, and the Lord muft do 
 all; When as Zerobabell & Jofua & the people came out of 
 captivity to build the temple, they all tooke their rest, & lett 
 the temple alone, till the Lord came & ftirred vp the spiritt 
 of Zerobabell & Jofua & the people, and then they fall a 
 building: fo (brethren) we may thinke to do great matters, 
 and lye quietly & calmely, and let the enimyes of the Church 
 do what they will, till the Lord ftirr vs vp, the Judges 
 ftirred not, till the Spiritt of God came vpon them, and then 
 they did wonderfull things; fo in fome meafure, we muft 
 looke for the Spirit of the Lord to come vpon vs, and then 
 we fhall do mighty things through the Lord, it is the Lord 
 himfelfe that muft effedt & do all: this for the firft exhorta¬ 
 tion, not to fuffer the Lord Jefus Chrift to be taken violently 
 away from vs, wherefoeuer we live, we fhall find fome that 
 go vnder a covenant of works, and thefe are enimyes to Chrift, 
 and the flefli will luft againft the Spiritt. Gal: 5. 17, and fo 
 we fhall find it in our fpiritts, thofe that are after the flefli, do 
 mind the things of the flefli, Rom: 8. 5. therefore where¬ 
 foeuer we are, we fhall haue Chrift taken from vs by violence, 
 if the Lord be not pleafed to giue vs to vfe thefe meanes. 
 
 The fecond vfe of exhortacon, we that are vnder a Cove¬ 
 nant of grace, let vs all haue a care fo to carry our felues, 
 
 that 
 
173 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 that we may haue the p r fence of the Lord, that he may not 
 depart from vs; for if the Lord depart we fhall haue caufe 
 of mourning indeede: That we may carry & behaue our- 
 felues, as the Lord Jefus Chrift, who is amongft vs, that he 
 may ftill be more & more p r fent w th vs, 
 
 i. ffirfl we muft haue a fpeciall care, that as any of vs are 
 intereffed w th the Gofpell, fo to deale faithfully in the dif- 
 pencing of it, whether we be in place or not in place, 
 whether brethren or fillers, being made pertakers of the 
 grace of God, being made flewards wee are to be found 
 faithfull, [therefore let vs haue a caire to deale faithfully,] 
 & to hold forth the truth as it is in the Lord Jefus Chrift, 
 & then wee fhall find the Lord to be p r fent w th vs, Math: 
 28. 20 Behold I am w th you, if you teach that, that he hath 
 comanded, he will be w th them; therefore in the feare of God 
 haue a care, that we do renounce the hidden things of dif- 
 honeftie, and that we do not vfe any deceit; Let vs not 
 be as fome that corrupt the word, but in finferity in the 
 fight of God as in Jefus Chrift, fo let vs fpeake, Let vs 
 all haue a care to hold forth Chrift, & not to runne into 
 generalityes, left Chrift vanifh away in a cloud, while the 
 faynts of God Hand gazing & haue fad harts, when we are 
 to hold forth any truth, let vs deale fathfully in this kind, 
 and the Lord will be abundantly p r fent, we fhall find he 
 fhall be a Savio r wherefoeuer he cometh either of life or 
 death, and if we be faithfull in few things, he will make vs 
 rulers ouer many. Math: 25. therefore if we meane to inioy 
 the p r fence of Chrift, & ftill wold haue more of the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift, & wold haue Chrift to come & fay, good & faith¬ 
 full 
 
174 
 
 Fast-day Sermon . 
 
 full feruant, & beftow more of his p r fence amongft vs, let vs 
 be faithfull in difpenfing any word of truth. 
 
 2. Secondly let vs haue a care all of vs, that we loue one 
 another, this is my comaundem* that you loue one another, 
 as I haue loued you. i John. 3. 23. the Lord Chrift delighteth 
 in a louing people, when the faynts of God loue one another, 
 & are willing to lay downe their lives one for another, the 
 Lord delighteth in them, Chrift was louing when he was 
 vpon the earth, if the Difciples were in danger at any tyme, 
 he came & fupported them, & helped them when they were 
 poafed by the Scribes & Pharifees, fometyme he came & 
 anfwered for them. A6ts. 2. 15. fome mocked at them, then 
 Peter fteppeth vp and faith, thofe are not drunken as ye fup- 
 pofe, he loued them & anfwered for them. Mofes feeing an 
 Egiptian ftriving w th his brother, he came & killed him. 
 A6ts. 7. 24. 25. 26. fo Chrift putetth into his people a louing 
 fpiritt; therefore let vs haue a care, [y*] we do not alienate our 
 harts one from another, becaufe of divers kind of expreffions, 
 but let vs keepe the vnity of the fpiritt in the bond of peace, 
 let vs haue a care to loue one another, and then the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift will be flill more & more p r fent. 
 
 3. Thirdly, let vs haue a care that we fhew our felues in 
 all manner of good confifation. 1 Pet: 1. 5. both in private 
 & publike & in all our cariages & conftfations, let vs haue a 
 care to be holy as the Lord is holy, let vs not giue an ocafion 
 to thofe that are coming on, or manifeftly oppofite to the 
 wayes of grace, to fufpeft the way of grace, let vs cary our 
 felues, that they may be afhamed to blame vs, let vs deale 
 vp rightly w th thofe, whom we haue occafion to deale, and 
 
 haue 
 
i75 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 haue a care to guide our familyes, & to performe duties that 
 belong to vs, and let vs haue a care that we giue not ocafion 
 to others to fay we are libertines or Antinomians, but Chrif- 
 tians, let vs expreffe the vertue of him that hath called vs, and 
 then he will manifefl his p r fence amongft vs. John: 14. if you 
 loue me I will manifeft myfelfe to you, he will crovne his 
 owne worke w th his p r fence, he will come into his garden & 
 eate of the pleafant fruits ; therefore let vs carry our felues, 
 fo that we may haue no caufe of mourning, for if the Lord 
 be abfent, there is caufe of mourning. 
 
 The third vfe is for reproofe. And firft it ferueth to 
 condemne all fuch as in their fadings & dayes of humili- 
 acon, do principally & aboue all feeke for bleffings to be 
 <pcured & euills remooued, and this is that, they are firft 
 carryed vnto, this is not the mayne matter, the mayne matter 
 is the abfence of the Lord; therefore if wee will do as we 
 ought to do, and performe this duty a right way; We muft 
 firft of all be carryed vnto the Lord Jefus Chrift: they 
 may pcure great bleffeings from the Lord, & yet the Lord 
 never accept of them, they may pray to the Lord & faft & 
 humble themfelues, and the Lord may heare them & pardon 
 them, & turne away his wrath ; and yet for all that, never faue 
 them; how did the Lord cary himfelfe towards the people 
 of the Jewes, you know the Lord gaue them his p r fence in the 
 wildernes, & gaue them an extraordinary figne of his p r fence, 
 they had a pillor of fire by night & a cloud by day, and the 
 Lord did caufe the Angell of his p r fence to go before them. 
 9 Neh: 12. and gaue them his good fpiritt to inftrudl them. 
 Ifay 63. and yet for all that, the body of.them were hipocrites, 
 and the Lord fware in his wrath, that they fhold never enter 
 
 into 
 
176 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 into his reft, what is the matter, they <pcure vnto themfelues 
 things from God & the bleffing of God; but they did not 
 get the Lord himfelfe, they had the Angell of Gods p r fence 
 to go before them, but they had not the Lord Jefus Chrift 
 in them, they had the fpiritt to inftrudt them, but they had 
 not the fpirit to dwell in them, they <pcure bleffmgs to them¬ 
 felues from the Lord, but they neuer got the Lord of bleffe- 
 ings: therefore all thofe that turne vnto thefe bleffmgs in 
 the firft place, and do not firffc of all turne to the Lord, will 
 neuer be made pertakers of the Lord. 
 
 2. The fecond fort that are to be condemned, are all fuch 
 as do fett themfelues againft the Lord Jefus Chrift, fuch are 
 the greateft enimyes to the date that can be, if they can 
 haue there wills, you fhall fee what a lamentable eftate both 
 the Church & comon wealth will be in, then we haue neede 
 of mourning, the Lord he cannot endure thofe that are eni¬ 
 myes to himfelfe & people & vnto the good of his Church, 
 fuch fhall neuer be able to p r vaile againft the Lord : What 
 will be the end & iffue do you thinke, if people to fet them 
 felues againft the wayes of grace & the Lord Jefus Chrift? 
 this will be the iffue of it, thofe that oppofe the wayes of 
 grace & refift the truth, they fhall wax worfe & worfe. 2 Tim: 
 3. & they may happily pceede a great way, but the tyme will 
 come that they fhall go no further, and by reafon of 
 agitation of things it will come to paffe, that the truth will 
 be cleared & their folly will be manifefted to all men, fo 
 faith the Apoftle, it is hard to kicke againft the pricks. 
 ACL 9. 5. whofoeuer ftriveth againft the Lord cannot prof- 
 per; if men or women fall vpon the Lord Jefus Chrift they 
 breake, but if the Lord Jefus Chrift do fall vpon them, he 
 
 will 
 
177 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 will breake them all to powder, if any fall vpon Chrift & they 
 will not let Chrift alone but fall vpon them w ch hold him 
 forth, & will abufe them, and be buffeting the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, there is neuer a ftroke they giue, but maketh wounds 
 in their confciences, but if they will be heaving out Chrift, 
 they fhall find it the heavieft ftone that euer was, it will fall 
 & breake them all to powder; if people fet themfelues againft 
 the Lord, & the wayes of grace & his truth, this will be the 
 iffue of it on their part, either thofe that fet themfelues 
 againft the wayes of God, they will be put to filence by the 
 light that cometh from Chrift, that they will be fo convinced, 
 that they fhall not be able to fpeake any more in their caufe, 
 as Chrift put downe thofe that came againft him, that they 
 durft afke him no more queftions, & there cometh fuch a 
 power from the word held forth by the faynts of God, that 
 it [will] ftrike a feare into their harts that oppofe it. What 
 ayleft thou O Jordan that the floods go backe, tremble thou 
 earth at the p r fence of the Lord, they that came to take Chrift 
 they fell backe, there cometh a divine power from the Lord 
 & turneth them all backe, the Lord will ftrike w th trembling 
 thofe that come againft Jerufalem, or if they be not put to 
 filence, it will come to paffe in tyme, they will fall into won- 
 derfull ftrong pafftons & will quarrell w th the faynts of God; 
 it was the cafe of Zedekiah -& Michaih, the queftion was 
 whether of them had the fpiritt of God, he came & fmote 
 the Prophet of God vpon the cheeke, but Gods fpirit is no fmit- 
 ing fpirit: Steven convinced the Jewes, & did by the power of 
 the Holy Ghoft, evidence his caufe to be the caufe of God, 
 and they were not able to refill the fpirit by w ch he fpake, 
 & they all came & run vpon him, Why do you refill the 
 
 Holy 
 
 23 
 
178 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 Holy Ghoft? what maketh the fmne againft the Holy Ghoft, 
 but inlightening, & fetting themfelues againft the wayes of 
 truth & perfecuting it in malice & wrath: it is a feareful 
 thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebr : 10. 
 for our God is a confuming fire, Heb: 12. 29. let euery one 
 (in the feare of God) haue a care, how they fet themfelues 
 againft the truth & wayes of God, and the wayes of Jefus 
 Chrift, for we muft all apeare before the J udgment feat of 
 Chrift. 2 Cor. 5. 10. 
 
 The laft vfe fhall be for confolacon, (howfoeuer this be a 
 day of humiliacon yet the apprehenfion of Gods grace & 
 mercy & goodnes, it worketh the kindliest humiliacon, finnes 
 are to be confidered & looked vpon, but finnes againft the 
 God of grace, may melt one: In that day I will power vpon 
 them the fpiritt of grace, and they fhall mourne, Zach: 12. 
 10. therefore the laft vfe fhall be for confolacon,) and it may 
 feme to comfort the children of God w ch do hold forth the 
 Lord Jefus Chrift & do difire that the Lord Jefus Chrift 
 may be receiued into Churches, into families, into the harts 
 of the people of God. (Brethren) thofe that walke this way 
 are the greateft freinds vnto the Church & comon wealth, 
 they intend & labor & indeauo r to bring [in] the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift, and if Chrift be p r fent, there will be no caufe 
 of faffing & mourning: therefore let me (in the name of 
 God) incourage all thofe that hold forth the wayes of grace, 
 and do indeauou r to make knowne the Lord Jefus Chrift. 
 (Brethren & Sifters) endeauour to bring Chrift into the harts 
 of people, and then you fhall make the Church happie, & 
 yoTelues happy, lift vp yo r heads O ye gates &c Pf: 24. 
 7. bring the Lord Jefus not only into thy houfe, but into 
 
 . thy 
 
179 
 
 Fast-day Sermon. 
 
 thy chamber of him that did beget you, endeauor it, for this 
 is Gods way, & it is a way to bring peace & happines both 
 to Church & Comon wealth. 
 
 Secondly, it may comfort the faynts of God in this refpect, 
 that feeing the Lord Jefus Chrift his abfence is the caufe of 
 faffing & mourning, this is a comfort to the children of God, 
 that come what will come they lhall be in a happy effate, 
 they fliall be bleffed: fuppofe thole that are Gods children 
 fhold loofe their houfes & lands & wives & freinds, & loofe 
 the adfing of the guifts of grace, & loofe the ordinances, yet 
 they can never loofe the Lord Jefus Chrift, this is a great 
 comfort to Gods people: fuppofe the faynts of God fhold 
 be banifhed & depriued of all the ordinances of God, that 
 were a hard cafe (in fome refpedf) for we had better part 
 w th all, then the ordinances ; but if the ordinances fhold be 
 taken away, yet Chrift cannot: for if John be banifhed into 
 an Hand: Reu: 1.9. 10, & the fpiritt come vpon him on the 
 Lords day, there is amends for the ordinances, amends for 
 banifhment, if we loofe the ordinanfes for God, he will be 
 ordinances vnto vs : therefore let the faynts of God be incour- 
 aged though they fhold loofe all they haue, yet they being 
 made one in Chrift, and Chrift dweling in their harts by faith, 
 they may be pfwaded nothing can feperate them from Chrift: 
 Rom: 8. 38. 39. therefore let the faynts of God reioyce, that 
 they haue the Lord Jefus Chrift, & their names written in 
 the booke of life, be glad & reioyce, for great is yo r reward 
 in heauen. 
 
 Note. The words enclofed in brackets in the foregoing difcourfe have 
 been fupplied to complete the fenfe, moftly from the early MS. copy in the 
 poffeffion of the Maffachufetts Hiftorical Society, as printed in their “ Proceed¬ 
 ings,” in 1866. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 . 
 
 •- 
 
 
 
 : • M 
 
 - 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 . 
 
 
Mercurius Americanus , 
 
 Mr. Welds his Antitype, 
 
 OR, 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 great Apologie examined, 
 
 Being Observations upon a Paper ftyled, 
 
 A fhortftoryof the Rife, Reign, and Ruine 
 
 of the Familijis , Libertines , &c. which infefled the 
 
 Churches of NE W- E NG L A ND , &c. 
 
 Wherein fome parties therein concerned are vindicated, and 
 
 the truth generally cleared. 
 
 By John Wheelwright junior. 
 
 < }n\aXr)6e ?. 
 
 n 
 
 L ON DON: 
 
 Printed, and are to be fold at the Bull near the Caftle- 
 Tavern in Cornhill. 1645. 
 
TO HIS HONOURED FRIEND 
 Captain Thomas Kingerbie. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 HIS Paper feems to challenge your Acceptance 
 under a twofold reafon, as it endeavours to ref- 
 cue your Friend, and as it propounds a Super- 
 fedeas for your Tribe; in all times it is beffc to 
 dedicate to a Friend, in thefe times to a Soul- 
 dier , in you I find a concurrence of both : if I look upon 
 you as a Friend , you have an Antitype; if as a Souldier, a 
 Mercurie: If you think it not worthy to be admitted in 
 the former way, let it be in the latter, and receive it as your 
 Scout: If you pleafe to own it, in either fenfe, or in any 
 fenfe, you reach the expectation, and defire of your 
 
 obliged Kinfman , 
 
 /. W. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 . # 
 
 
 V. 
 
TO THE READER- 
 
 HERE is a paper lately printed, intituled , The 
 Rife, Reign, and Ruine, &c. upon which I had 
 (in regard of the importunity of fome friends, 
 together with the expectation of many others , 
 looking at the tafk as almofl neceffarily impofed 
 tip on me) prefumed to obferve, and indeed I pro traded not 
 for want of time; but in hope fome of the family, or at 
 leafl, through their diredion, fome of their friends, would 
 have applyed themfelves to it, which wher I fee not, I refolved 
 upon it (as upon ) (in regard of the premiffes) an Indifpenfa- 
 ble Ad, not out of any affedion to be feen in Prmt, but out 
 of a pitie, which I had on Innocence, (unleffe by this means) 
 remedilefly to be oppreffed under Infolence and Malice, as. 
 appears in the forenamed difcourfe. 
 
 Where we meet firfl with fome Apologeticall paffages, one 
 of which, is the perfeding of a book lately come forth out 
 of the Preffe, to which, he saith, he was preffed by divers 
 wherein perhaps he intends, to be Rhetoricall, but what is 
 
 the . 
 
 * 
 
 24 
 
186 
 
 To the Reader. 
 
 the Refult of this prefjing, to extract ( forfooth ) the quintef- 
 fence and fpirits of the Author: in what? In perfecting 
 the Hi/lory ; which terme perhaps he ufeth fecretly to exccufe 
 the Incompleatneffe of his Notions for thofe things which 
 are perfellive, of another efpecially per modum formae fuper- 
 venientis materiae, (Such as his are pretended) ufe to be In¬ 
 comp teat: But what perfection doth he intend? what degree 
 of aclus perfectivi will this man give, fuch as the firft All 
 gives l No, thats being, or entity meerly, which it feems it 
 had before, or fuch as the fecond All adds, thats a form, 
 formality, this furely he would conferre, which he hath done 
 poorly, as appears ; or will he go higher, and beftow the per¬ 
 fection of the third A Cl tip on the fecond exiftence ; and 
 draw it extra caufas, that he hath done, Extra Ideales ac pri- 
 mordiales in fome places, but by this means he hath brought 
 it within the compaffe, of hie & nunc, which I am glad of, 
 that I may Anfwer it: But how will he perfeCl it? He 
 tels us how, by laying down the fenfe and order of the ftory: 
 What have we here ? a mythologie ? Reall Hifiories ufe 
 to carry their own fence, matters of fall need no comment, 
 fictions have their fenfes, Fables their Morals. Did his zeal 
 of fending one mite towards the profiration of thefe Opin- 
 ionifis pitch his thoughts, impatient of fiory, and examining 
 the matter upon gloffe and inveClive ? or fhall we confirue it 
 as a faiall dafh of his pen, pradically pointing out to us the 
 * fequell ? Or did the man lay down his own fenfe, when he 
 refolved to lay down the fenfe of the fiory ? Order, perhaps 
 the other ufed Syntheticall, and began with Mrs. Hutchinfon 
 whom he cals the head of the fadtion, this man will life Ana¬ 
 lytical! 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 187 
 
 lyticall and conclude with her; the firjl its likely was fome 
 Jimple Theorift, this an Adlor in the bufineffe, I warra 7 it 
 you, let him be what he will, he would fee 7 n a good Methodift, 
 710 1 in martiall affairs though, for he fets Mrs. Hutch- 
 infon whom he cals, as before, the Captain # m the rear, # 2 
 which feems to be a 7 i error unleffe as afraid of a combat 
 he would put his book hi to a poflure of retreat, which it 7 nay 
 be he intends, and fo I will follow hhn. Here is much pretence 
 of conformity to heavens proceedings, whilefl he faith, What 
 God hath pardoned in heaven he would not renew on earth: 
 But he would be excufed this correfpondence three wayes. Firft, 
 by declaring this was in print before he 7 nedled with it. But 
 obferve Reader, he is guilty of the Order and fenfe of it. Sec - 
 07 idly, by faying Gods great works mu ft be made known : it 
 fee 7 ns his works mediately by them are greater than his imme¬ 
 diate a As. Thirdly, by that ordinary prete 7 ice the necefjfity 
 
 of State, the times call for his writing, he faith ; he would be 
 thought a 7 i Oracle of Imperiall depths; A conffderable pert- 
 man, upon whom States depe 7 id, and whofe writings the 
 exigences of Kingdoms expedi. Upon which fuppofition I 
 wonder he took no 7 nore pains, for he would 7 nake us beleeve, 
 he wa 7 ited time, which I cannot think, unleffe by his expref 
 Jion a {trait of time, he mea 7 i in allufion to ftraits of land, a 
 part of time intercepted twixt two other parts, which might 
 fo be a yeer,<and is mofi likely: Or unleffe he mean in regard 
 of the pretended feafonableneffe of his difcourfe, top yaipov, 
 the opportunity of time; or unleffe that the matter of his 
 book were fo blameleffe as that in charity, we might conceive 
 he did intueri verbum when he writ it, a 7 id fo was in a 
 
 higher 
 
188 
 
 To the Reader. 
 
 higher meafure of his A dtion then time. But whatfoever 
 may be allowed him in patria, if that will not be granted 
 him in via, if he did make ufe of time, I am fure he had a 
 competencie of it at the leaf, for though he be (/ will not 
 detract) one of the higher fphaeres, yet (in which he is higher 
 too ) in his difcourfes , efpecially polemick , he ajfedls the pace 
 of Saturne, under zvhofeplanetary houre he was born ; but 
 if this content him not, but he will (that he may hurry all 
 after his opinion ) needs be filed primum mobile, let him be 
 and I in refpedt of and reverence to his grave, and 
 regular motion will be circumvolved a little with him, onely he 
 mufl give me leave in the nature of an Orbe as well as he, 
 though a lower one, to have a proper motion of mine own, 
 wherein though I thwart him , / may perform my own courfe 
 by which I hope to have fome influence tip on thee unprejudiced 
 & qualified Reader; which obtained makes the period, and 
 revolution of thy Mercurie, 
 
 John Wheelwright. 
 
LTHOUGH my Intentions be to apply my 
 thoughts to thofe things which do exprefly 
 concern Mr. Wheelwright , yet feeing I have 
 undertaken to vindicate him, I muft likewife 
 ingage myfelf in thofe things which are of 
 remoter and more implicite concernment; wherein he 
 is by way of involution, and as the conflruction of peo¬ 
 ple ignorant of matters may proceed after a more eminent 
 way difgraced, viz. in his being put promifcuoufly amongft 
 thofe whom they call Antinomians, Libertines, &c. and 
 being equally intituled to the erronious pofitions fubfe- 
 quent: a groffe abufe, not onely to him, but to fome 
 others who are brought upon the ftage # that they fhould # 3 
 be thus indifcriminately charged as they are in his Pref¬ 
 ace, which begins thus. After we had efcaped the hands of 
 the p erfecuting Prelates , &c. Yes, then you began to be pre- 
 laticali your felves, elfe why did not you admit thofe men, 
 who left Bifhops as well as ye, to a freedome of fpirit, and 
 confcience which they came for? or at the leaft, why did 
 
 you 
 
190 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 you not protract their cenfures, and give them leave to 
 recover, and recoiled! themfelves after they were out of the 
 hands of thofe Prelates? you might have confiderd, that it 
 was their good opinion of you, and the reformation amongft 
 you, which fcrued their meditations in way of preparation 
 for your fociety, to a fublimation in dodlrine, as well as dis¬ 
 cipline ; and there might be fome difpofitions to errours at 
 the firft, which would never have advanced fo much, had 
 not the Antiperijlajis of your vehement profecution forced 
 them into a habit; you might have been pleafed to have 
 looked at them as men tranfported, through - the fancie of 
 pradlicall liberty to be injoyed, into fome doctrines of Liber- 
 tinifme, and fo have allowed fomething to imagination : which 
 is the main, you might have reviewed your former condition, 
 wherein (as you fay your felves) you were expofed to the 
 malice of your Diocefans; divers waies, me thinks, there 
 are whereby you might have taken up your felves in more 
 moderate deportment towards your brethren, then in fining, 
 confining, imprifoning, disfranchizing, banifhing, and as 
 much as in you lay, killing. 
 
 The infection which the Churches caught by thefe errors, 
 fwels into three heads, How they have prevailed, how they 
 reigned, and how they were ruined. Here is their 'irpodygr) d/cp,r), 
 and 7 rapdfCfA 7 ), and here I muffc needs profecute that which 
 I before named, viz. the unequall, (and yet too equall) im¬ 
 plication of fome parties, hereafter named in the errors, all’ 
 which to my certain knowledge, and, I beleeve, to fome of 
 theirs, even to the Author of the book, are difavowed by 
 fome of thefe fuppofed Libertines, by name, (for feeing 
 
 thefe 
 
Mercurius Americanus . igi 
 
 thefe tenents were attributed to all, yet not univocally but' 
 Analogically , I muft apply my felf ad principale Analoga- 
 tum) Mr. Wheelwright who hath openly protefted againft 
 them, witneffe Mount Wollajlon , where they know, and our 
 Author tels us, that one of his own Scholars told him, He fet 
 tip Antic hrijl becaufe he did not comp lie with him ; a heavie 
 charge, which furely he would never have put upon Mr. 
 Wheelwright , to whofe Dodlrine he ever before affented, had 
 there been fo neer an agreement twixt them as this per- 
 fedter tels us, whofe words are thefe, after he had named 
 the opinions of this Scholar of his as he cals him: Now 
 (faith he) thefe things were fo grosse that M. Wheelwright 
 could not but contradict them , yet fo tenderly as fhewed a neer 
 agreement with him in thefe points . And faith moreover, 
 that they are neceffarie confequences which he gathered from 
 his doCtrine . Where there are divers indignities put upon 
 Mr. Wheelwright. Firft, that he fhould have unfound prin¬ 
 ciples. And fecondly, not know their confedtaries 
 * as well as an illiterate man; I can fcarce forbear to # 4 
 break my order, and fall upon him now, but I fhall 
 come at length more fitly to it, and fhall trie how well our 
 Author is fkilled in confequences: in the mean time, I ufe 
 this now to let the Reader fee the injuftice of this Medley 
 of his; if the heat which infpires his paper, were true zeal, 
 it would Congregare homogenea & fegregare heterogenea. 
 
 There are others too as well as Mr. Wheelwright , who 
 are not affedfed with thefe paradoxes, as Captain Underhill 
 a gentleman, who did good fervice againft the Pequits , as 
 it is well known in New-England , which their Emiffary 
 
 might 
 
192 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 might have requited better then to have muttered him 
 among a troop of Enthujiafts under Mrs. Hutchinfon their 
 Captain as he cals her. Admit he erred, yet fliall every 
 little errour touching Divinity in militarie men, whofe 
 ftirred humours may eafily attenuate the fpirits, when they 
 fo apply themfelves, and refine them into a nicety , be 
 heighten’d into herefie, and prefently feen in print? He 
 urged the libertie allowed to Souldiers, indanced in the free- 
 dome of fpeech he had to Count Naffau: But my Authors 
 reafon for fetting out his book was pretended for his cen- 
 fure, viz . the neceffity of State, and fo the Captain was 
 degraded. 
 
 Another mentioned in his Catalogue is Mr. Edward 
 Hutchinfon; I wonder that he is amongd the crowde, 
 when as he did not ufe to be factious or opinionate: indeed 
 the genius of that family hath not much inclined to fubtil- 
 ties, fcarce any of the Hutchinfons have been Sectaries, 
 unleffe a latere , and indiredly, by reafon of which, me 
 thinks, he might have been placed (if it mud needs be) 
 more obliquely in this predicament of Familifme , &c. then 
 he is. This man faid in the Court (which through Chrif- 
 tian libertie he thought he might very well fay) that if the 
 Court took away his means, he fliould not be able to main¬ 
 tain his wife and children. Now the Court when they pro¬ 
 pounded his Fine, might think, (fuppofmg him to be En- 
 thufiajiique) that he would not have looked at means as 
 neceffarie, but rather in a holy triumph have prodituted all, 
 and expeCted immediate induence: in which he deceivedN 
 the awfull and ferious expectation of the Court, which ac- 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 193 
 
 ceffary contempt committed him, and re-inforced his pre¬ 
 pared cenfures; which might be haftened the rather by this 
 reafon too, the Governor comparing the intended Fine with 
 his eftate, might fee difproportion, which he thought might 
 be called Contemptus Naturalis , though not elicitus; Or 
 whether they looking at him as apprehenfive of want fuf- 
 pedted him; that conceit promoted too by a late imagina¬ 
 tion of the crime, as likely to be feditious. However it was, 
 the man was fined fourty pound, and disfranchized. 
 
 Another is Mr. Sam: Hutchinfon who (as I remember) 
 upon difiike of fome proceedings in Court out of .a pang 
 of zeal, though otherwife no great Crit- # tick, afked a # 5 
 queftion of them in way of fcruple, whereupon he was 
 cenfured guilty of contempt, and (I think) fedition too, and 
 fo was banifht. But obferve the wifdom of the Court, they 
 perceiving, in that he did but meerly afk a queftion, that 
 there were in him fome fparks of truth, and ingenuity, fent 
 him to a place called, The IJle of Errours , that by the cir- 
 cumobfejience of corrupt opinions, that little good which he 
 had might be united and fortified, and he at length reduced 
 into an liability of cohabitation; which effect it feems it 
 had : for, as I hear fince, he is refumed into their precindts. 
 And this I muft fay for the Court, they were fo courteous 
 to him befides, (rare lenity!) as that they allowed him lib- 
 ertie to come to them to Bofton once a moneth, even during 
 his expulfion; I fuppofe in the waning of the Moon, when 
 his hotter fits (as they conceived them) were over, thinking 
 that in fome competent time, he might be perfectly cured 
 of the Lunacie which they fuppofed poffeffed him. 
 
 25 
 
 The 
 
« 
 
 194 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 The next are Mr. CogJIiall , and Mr. AJpinall\ which 
 latter for his diflike of fome proceedings of Court was ban- 
 ifht, and Mr. CogJIiall Deputie, prefuming libertie to diffent 
 from the major part, through reluftation of his confcience, 
 and reflection upon his priviledge, broke forth into this 
 exprefflon : That if he could not be heard , he mujl: whereat 
 he flopt, which might have been well interpreted; for being 
 incenfed by reafon of the fevere dealing with his brethren 
 before him, per Imperium voluntatis , and out of brotherly 
 love, he thought he muft do fomething, although his rea¬ 
 fon (for the prefent charmed by the Magick of the Court 
 fo powerfully exercifed upon thofe that were fentenced be¬ 
 fore him) could not tell him what, whereupon he flopt at 
 the word mujl: for which apojiopejis he was disfranchized, 
 as one that through fuch eloquence might become a pefli- 
 lent fellow; but flnce he hath lived peaceably, refolving 
 never to difcover more Rhetorick left he fliould be banifhed. 
 
 The next in his book is Tho: Marjhall, , the Ferrie-man, 
 as he calls him; this good man was occupied in a River 
 called Charles River , direftly betwixt Bojlon , the place of 
 thefe Opinionifts, and Charles Town, and other Towns, 
 where his fpirits being predifpofed by the roughneffe of 
 winds and waves, and agitated by the Counter buffes of 
 Divinitie, which the refpeftive paffengers vented, he might 
 (you will fay) eafily be inflamed; But as long as he kept 
 his watery Element he had an allay: which when he left, 
 and went to the Court, whether he did (as referring to the 
 premiffes, you may conceive pofflble) rudely enter into the 
 Court, or whether his feaver beat fo to his fingers ends, as 
 
 it 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 r 95 
 
 it urged him to fubfcribe to a Petition; however it was, he 
 was pronounced guilty (which indeed is common with water¬ 
 men) of contempt. Hereupon difplaced, fince which 
 time, for want of that imployment, he is * grown fo * 6 
 poore, that he will not be able to pay the indifpenfa- 
 ble halfpeny to Charon for his paffage. 
 
 The next is one Tho: Grydley , an honeji poore man , (as 
 the Pamphleter cals him) yet (as he faith) too bufee in things 
 above his reach; alas good man! he never knew that qucv 
 fupra nos nihil ad nos , but the Court cured him of his 
 pragmaticalneffe very well; for they took from him his 
 imployment, and cenfured him an abettor of contempt, 
 and /edition, which termes he never hearing before, nor not 
 knowing what they might mean, did fo amaze, and mafquer 
 him, that ever fince, in an admiring fpeculation of, and gaz¬ 
 ing upon them, he hath flood as in a rapture or extafee, not 
 finding leafure for new action. 
 
 There is one more, viz. Mr. Dyer, he was charged with 
 contempt too, though I think onely disfranchifed, that his 
 brain might move in a leffe compaffe, whereupon the good 
 man was united into an ability to deliver his mind concern¬ 
 ing an opinion of his in the Church, which our Author 
 faith he did weakly too. In fuch cafes as thefe me thinks 
 that of the Apoftle might have place: If any one be over¬ 
 taken with an err our, ye that are fpirituall re/lore ye fuch a 
 one in the fpirit of meekne/fe. 
 
 The firft amongffc the women is Mrs. Hutchinfon . This 
 is Hie who he faith had at once thirty conceptions, fome big¬ 
 ger, fome le/fer, fome of one f tape, fome of another: and this 
 
 he 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 196 
 
 he affures us, faying, That he hath learned otherwife (bleffed 
 be his Name ) then to delude the world with untruths. I 
 queftion not his learning, &c. but I admire his certainty, or 
 rather impudence: did the man obteflricate ? We know (as 
 he faith of himfelf, he fometimes hangs up brats againft the 
 Sun , but furely he medled not with thefe, referved I fup- 
 pofe, &c. unleffe he had it from him who is fo eccentricke in 
 his motion (as one faith of him.) But what if he had it from 
 any then prefent ? will that fuffice to make him fo confident, 
 as thereupon to take occafion to ingage, and magnifie Divine 
 direction, and derive this not known by him to be a truth, 
 from the God of truth ? If any of the men he cals Familifts, 
 &c. had done fo, would it not have been accounted irrelig¬ 
 ious ? relifhing of profanenes ? &c. would not my Authors 
 fofteft expofition have called it unfavourie? 
 
 As for his Analogy , which he obferves betwixt her pro¬ 
 ductions and opinions, That as Jhe held thirty of the one , fo 
 fie brought forth thirty of the other: Gods wifdome (he faith) 
 fitting thofe to thefe: It is a monftrous conception of his 
 brain, a fpurious iffue of his intellect, adled upon by a 
 fweatifh and Feaverifh zeal, which indeed beats almoft in 
 every line ; and refolves his in themfelves imperfedl fome¬ 
 times, if not feigned fadts into phanatique meditations. For 
 firffc the proportion is not exaft, for he reckons not 30. opin¬ 
 ions which he cals Mrs. Hutchinfons , and thofe many of 
 them coincident too, made more I fuppofe to prepare for 
 his conceit. Secondly, but admit it were, yet his No- 
 # 7 tion * is impertinent, for he brings in defeats of Nature, 
 amongft defedls of Manners. All he can fay (if he were 
 
 fo 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 l 97 
 
 fo acute) is, that thofe are thefe reductive , and as they are 
 effects of fin. A poore plea, by the fame reafon he may 
 under the fame title difcover all the weakneffes and naturall 
 imperfections either of man or woman, and fix a kind of 
 morality upon them : But he will fay perhaps, that this birth 
 was an extraordinary defeCt: It avails nothing, unleffe he 
 will either raife it to a miracle, or at the leaft prove a fuper- 
 naturall remiffion of the formative virtue in her. That will 
 require a moft accurate phyficall infpeCtion which I think 
 his learning will not reach, although (for ought I can fee) 
 his modefiy might: for he tels us of women purging and 
 vomiting, what if the diftemper we ufually call Cholera did 
 for the prefent oppreffe thofe women ? muft it needs be pro¬ 
 claimed ? muft it needs be in print ? 
 
 As for Mrs. Hutchinfon , fhe was a woman of a good wit, 
 and not onely fo, which is all he will allow her, but naturally 
 of a good judgement too, as appeared in her civill occafions; 
 In fpirituals indeed fhe gave her underftanding over into 
 the power of fuggeftion and immediate dictates, by reafon 
 of which flie had many ftrange fancies, and erroneous ten- 
 ents poffeffc her, efpecially during her confinement, where 
 flie might feel fome effeCt too from the quality of humors, 
 together with the advantage the devill took of her condition 
 attended with melancholy. In a word, as guilty of moft of 
 thefe errours, and for a pretended revelation of the deftruc- 
 tion of the Court, flie was expelled the Bay of Maffa- 
 chufetts. . 
 
 The next is Mrs. Dyer, the wife of Mr. Dyer aforenamed, 
 flie was devoted to Mrs. Hutchinfons fancies; this is flie, 
 
 who 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 198 
 
 who (he fayes) had the monfter: whether the conceptions of 
 her brain had influence upon the conceptions of her wombe, 
 or thefe of the wombe upon thofe of the brain, I will not 
 difcuffe. This difcoverer inclines to the former, I think he 
 might by a deeper fearch have reached the naturall caufe 
 whiled he in his Method telling us her penaltie, judges her 
 for her errours immediately fentenced from heaven: in 
 which paffage, as in many other in his book, a fpirit of cen- 
 fure and malice is pregnant. 
 
 The other he fpeaks of is one good wife Hctukins , who 
 he faith, is a witch; a poore filly woman, yet having fo 
 much wit, as perceiving Mrs. Hutchin: ambitious of prof- 
 elytes , to fupply her wants, fhe attended on her weekly 
 Ledlure , (as it is called) where when Mrs. Hutchinfon 
 broached any new dodtrine, fhe would be the firft would 
 tafte of it: And being demanded whether it were not clear 
 to her, though fhe underflood it not, yet would fay, Oh yes 
 very clear. By which means fhe got, through Mrs. Hutch¬ 
 inf ons affedtion to her, fome good victuals, infomuch that 
 fome faid fhe followed Chrift for loaves; Now feeing thofe 
 things were fo, me thinks our Author need not have 
 *8 been fo rigid # in his opinion of her. Alas, Ars illcz 
 sua cenfus erat , furely a little leffe gall would (as con¬ 
 cerning others, fo her) have done better in his ink, when, as 
 it appears, fhe complied with her patroneffe, not fo much out 
 of love to her pofitions as poffets , being guilty I think 
 of no other for eerie, unleffe it were conjuring the fpirit of 
 Err our into a Cordiall. 
 
 Thus 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 199 
 
 Thus having given you an account of thefe perfons, and 
 paffages, I cannot but obferve thefe things. 
 
 Fird, the Reafons which all thefe men might propound 
 to themfelves, for doing and faying what they did. Alas, 
 we mud look at them as men who had left their edates, 
 friends, pleafures of their native foyl, fpirituall Chymijis , 
 extracting the fweetneffe of all into freedom of confcience, 
 doubting not but they might dnd all in that Elixar; but 
 as no Chymifl yet got it, fo they were many of them de¬ 
 ceived ; which when they furveyed, and fee the refult, it 
 might trouble the weaker, and through melancholy fumes 
 difpofe them to drange fancies in Divinity. 
 
 Secondly, the verdiCt of the Court upon them all, con¬ 
 tempt, which furely mud proceed from the drong imprefdon 
 that the fuppofed contempt of Mr. Wheelwright made in 
 the fancie of the Governor; by reafon of which prepoffedion 
 he could conceive no other crime, elfe it cannot but feem 
 drange, that there fhould be fuch a fympothy , that fo many 
 men and women too, whofe fex may inequalize and differ¬ 
 ence much, fhould all run into the fame prczmunire. Such 
 a continuity of fpirits as this confent of theirs mud fuppofe, 
 would be a good principle of the Art of the Weapon-falve. 
 
 I give this watch-word to you all, that you are difgraced in 
 omni graclu naturee intelleciivce ac pradtieez: he goes drd 
 from pradticks , then to dodlrinals , then again to pradlicks ; 
 thus he runs in a circle of abufe. In the underdanding he 
 weakens you two wayes, by an inordination of things and 
 tearms; of things, in the errors ; of tearms, in the unfavoury 
 fpeeches (as he cals them;) in praCtife, by all the poffible 
 
 differences 
 
200 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 differences of exorbitance, pride, boldneffe, mfolence, deceit , 
 contempt, /edition, fchifme; all which are indifferently, and 
 indiftindtly charged upon you in the Preface, fo that indeed 
 who reads it would think you all equally guilty : and had I 
 any premij/es of the fame nature, concerning fome of you, 
 as I have concerning Mr. Wheelwright, I fhould vindicate 
 you, as I do him. But feeing I have not, I muft apply 
 my felf to him particularly, and free him from thofe errours 
 and unfavoury fpeeches, wherein I do but proceed accord¬ 
 ing to the Rule of Art which attends principale analoga- 
 tum, which by his own faying in his 31. pag . is Mr. Wheel¬ 
 wright; Now, faith he, all thefe, except Mr, Wh: were but 
 young branches, &c. 
 
 The way wherby I muft vindicate Mr. Wheelwright is 
 from my Authors own lines in his 42. page, where he tels 
 us of the opinions which he {viz. Mr. Wh:) oppofed being 
 thefe. 
 
 # 9 # Firft, That there are immediate revelations without 
 
 the Word. Secondly, That the child of God is dead, 
 not aTting at all, but as Chri/l alls in him. Thirdly, that 
 there is no inherent righteoufnejfe in the Saints. Fourthly, 
 that the Commandment is a dead letter. Now if Mr. Wheel¬ 
 wright (as the Author gives us) do abhor thefe pofitions, let 
 right reafon, and the ftrength of confequence judge whether 
 he can be juftly entituled either to the unfavourie fpeeches, . 
 or to any of the errours; And firft for the unfavoury fpeeches. 
 
 If Mr. Wheelwright oppugne the opinion of immediate rev¬ 
 elations, how can he fay that evidencing jufiification by 
 fandlification favours of Rome? For if he denie immedi¬ 
 ate, 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 201 
 
 ate, he muft grant mediate: And that mediante verbo , 
 either in an abfolute, (as he grants at the firft) or in a con- 
 ditionall promife, as he holds at the fecond evidence; And 
 many can vvitneffe who have heard him approve evidence 
 of juflification by fandtification, but what need of that? 
 doth it not appear in the principles, they themfelves do hap¬ 
 pily give me ? 
 
 How can he hold, he is never the worfe for being unholy, 
 nor the better for being holy, when he grants evidence from 
 holineffe ? 
 
 Or how can he fay, if Chrift will let me fin, let him; 
 when as he holds Chriftians have life in themfelves, a prin¬ 
 ciple from which they adt. Surely M. Wheelwright hath fo 
 much Logick, as to know frujlra fit potentia qucz non re- 
 ducitur in adlum. 
 
 Or how can he fay, I fieek not grace but Chrifi , if it be 
 meant in contempt of graces ? would any man negledt his 
 evidences ? unleffe he mean thus ? I feek not graces ulti¬ 
 mate & refolutive , not as the fupreme but fubordinate end, 
 not as principium imperativum , but diredtivum , not as quod , 
 but as quo , not to reft in them, but to move by them to the 
 place of reft: which if he mean, it is not unfavoury, but 
 favours of fiublimated purity and grace. 
 
 Or how can he fay, [/ know I am Chrifis , not because I 
 do crucifie the flefii , but becaufie I do not ;] when he expedts 
 teftimony of falvation by fuch adts of crucifying ? 
 
 Or this, If Chrift be my fandtification , what need I look 
 for any thing to evidence my jufiification , when as it is of 
 
 the 
 
 26 
 
202 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 the fame nature with the former, and lies expofed to the 
 fame inconfiftence ? 
 
 Now I come to the firft number of errours, wherein 
 although many things be coincident with the former unfa- 
 voury fpeeches, and with the latter number, yet I fhall give 
 you an exadt account of the particulars: and as for the firft 
 of them which is, That the preaching of the Law is of no 
 ufe to drive a man to Chrift: How can he hold it, when as 
 he faith, Faith comes by hearing the Word? Now if he 
 allow the Word in A flu completivo , in the completure and 
 evreXeyeia of a Chriftians mind, much more in fome prepar¬ 
 atory and difpofitive a< 5 ts, as is drawing to Chrift; 
 * io know, that reafon gives that a difpofi- # tive to which 
 it will not give a completive power, as to cold in gen¬ 
 eration , as the Philofophers fay; furely where completion is 
 allowed, much more difpoftion. 
 
 Or the fecond, That a man is united to Chrift without 
 faith , yea from eternity: If it be meant refpedting Gods 
 decree, it is true; but if actually, how can Mr. Wheelwright 
 hold it, when as he grants there is fomething on mans part 
 to receive Chrift? 
 
 Or the third, viz. That faith is not a mans receiving of 
 Chrift , but a mans perceivmg it: this is true if de reflexo 
 aTtu ; false, if de diretlo atlu: what matter in this ? This 
 is a meer equivocation, you might have fpared this, but you 
 muffc fill up the Number. 
 
 For the fourth, That a man is united to Chrift without 
 any atl of his: it is the fame with the fecond, and may 
 receive the fame anfwer. 
 
 For 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 203 
 
 For the fifth, which is, That a man hath never effectually 
 Chrijl till he hath affurance: it is the fame with the third, 
 and is true if meant de certitudine objeCti: but if fubjeCii, 
 how can Mr. Wh: hold it, when as he holds the ufe of 
 fignes, to confirm faith in the regenerate? Which muft 
 needs allow it fome latitude, and not limit it to a meer pie - 
 rophory ; and furely one man never held the fourth opinion 
 and this too ; that faying, that a man is united to Chrifi: 
 without any adt of his, this, that a man cannot be Chrifts 
 till he have adted, viz. reflected; thefe were not fo confider- 
 ately jumbled together, efpecially being one factions brood , 
 as he faith. I wonder that having fuch opportunity to 
 hang thefe brats up againfl the Sun, he did not hang thefe 
 further one off the other. For the fixt, which is, that the 
 witnes of the Spirit is meerly immediate, without any 
 refpedt to the Word, how can Mr. Wh: hold it when as 
 he oppofed the opinion of immediate revelation ? 
 
 The feventh is, When a man hath the witneffe of the 
 Spirit he never doubts more: How can Mr. Wh: hold this 
 if he know what doubt means, being motus fuper utramque 
 partem contradiCtionis: when as he grants preventives of 
 the motion or deviation betwixt thefe two tearms; in grant¬ 
 ing confirmation, which is a fupply of a defedt, or an accef 
 fary to a principall expofed to fome degree of doubt ? 
 
 For the ninth, it fals the fame with this former, and 
 being in the fame conclufion, onely differenced by a fup- 
 pofed cafe or occafion, it will not call for a fpeciall anfwer. 
 
 The tenth is, SanCtification can be no evidence of a mans 
 good eflate; How can Mr. Wh: hold this when as he op- 
 
 pugnes 
 
204 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 pugnes immediate revelations without the word ? Why 
 then he muft grant mediate; and why may not that word 
 refer to fanditie ? 
 
 The 12. viz. No comfort can be had from any condi- 
 # 11 tionallpromife: How can it # be afferted by him, who 
 grants evidence from Sanctification , which evidence 
 muft needs run in the Channell of fome conditionall prom¬ 
 ife, if not fo formally, yet vertually and by way of refolution. 
 
 The 12. is, that to fee I have no grace at alt , is true pov¬ 
 erty of fpirit , and it CQmes to the fame with fome of the 
 former. 
 
 The 13 is, That the graces of Saints and hypocrites differ 
 not: How can there be evidence from them unleffe they 
 differ? It may be this is the meaning, they differ not by 
 any pofitiue thing fuperadded, but praecifely in their owne 
 Natures , and are not fo properly called different as diverfe; 
 but this is a meere nicetie. 
 
 The 14 A hypocrite may have Adams graces which he 
 had in his innocencie: it comes to the fame fenfe with the 
 former. 
 
 The 15 is this, All graces are in Chrift as in the fubjedi , 
 and fo in us as Chrift is in us , and no otherwaies; which 
 cannot be attributed to Mr. Wh. when as he holds (as before 
 we faid) evidence from graces, which could not be, unleffe 
 they were in us, as in the primary and immediat fubjeTt; 
 neither did he ever make Chrift the formall principle of 
 fuch actions, as beleeving and repenting, which this tenent 
 concludes. 
 
 The 16, which is this, Chrift is the new creature; how 
 
 can 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 205 
 
 can Mr. Wh. hold it, when he grants evidence from the 
 new creation of graces in us? 
 
 The 17. God loves a man never the better for being holy , 
 nor the worfe for being unholy: how can he defend it? who 
 grants manifeflation of Gods favour in the way of holineffe ? 
 
 The 18. Sinne in a child of God mufl never trouble him; 
 which opinion is apparently reducible. 
 
 The 19. is, Trouble in confcience for fenne, fhewes a man 
 to be under a Covenant of works ; how can he hold it, when 
 as he makes accompt, trouble for finne in the Nature of a 
 grace, proportionally fliews a man to be under a Covenant 
 of grace? 
 
 The 20. A Chriflian is not bound to the Law: how can 
 he think it, who experts comfort in a way of fandtity the 
 ETtype of the Law? 
 
 For the 21. All Covenants made to God in words are 
 Legall; how can he be guilty of it, who holds Religion and 
 Pietie requifite in the Saints ? which furely mufl; needs dif- 
 cover it felf, in fome godly vowes and refolutions; unleffe 
 we will reftraine it ad aTtum primum , which were abfurd: 
 Perhaps this was in oppofition to Mr. Weis his ftridt Cove¬ 
 nant ; never to break Sabbath more , never to think idle 
 thought more , &c. 
 
 The 22. A Chri/lian is not bound to pray except the 
 Spirit move him; How can Mr. Wh. hold it, when (as be¬ 
 fore) he commits his life to the redfory of the Law, which 
 bids him pray continually ? what need he ftay till the 
 Spirit moves % any further, when as he grants the * 12 
 Spirit moves only in the word ? what need he expedt 
 
 the 
 
206 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 the antecedent motion of the Spirit, who faith, he muft begin 
 to pray that he may have the concomitant ? why fhould he 
 fufpend this holy action for an Immediate dictate, whenas 
 he grants Chriftians have a principle of life, from which they 
 can aft ? how can the man fo found in the premiffes think 
 himfelf not bound to pray, but when the Spirit moves him? 
 
 The 23. is this, A man who hath not this new light , is 
 not able to edifie others who have it: I fuppofe they mean 
 another, quatenus another, and fo the pofition is true in for¬ 
 malin for nil dat quod non habet , but then the word quatenus 
 muft be taken reduplicative , and not fpecificative , unleffe by 
 the tearme they attend the refpedlive entitie, in regard of 
 which it muft be denyed diredlly and per fe only too, not 
 per accidens; in thefe lenfes, the affertion is true: but if we 
 confider the materiale , and fo they accompt the precedent 
 errours light, I deny it to be truth, for fuch light (which I 
 fhaddow Mr. Wh. from) is indeed darknes, and the light 
 which our Author would praeferre to fhame Mr. Wh. is 
 very dull, as will appeare; and in the meane time, I muft 
 apply that faying both to this Opinionifl , and to my Au- 
 thour , If the light that is in you be darkneffe , how great is 
 that darkneffe ? 
 
 The 24. is, That the whole Letter of the Scripture holds 
 forth a Covenant of works ; it is true in fome fenfe: xam- 
 ple, Chrift bids the young man keep the Commandements 
 in order to eternall life ; This in the letter pretends to a 
 Covenant Legall, whilft in its Anagoge it intends Chrift the 
 Authour of fufficiencie, and fo pitches upon the Covenant 
 of grace; but that the whole Letter doth fo, cannot bee 
 
 Mr. 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 207 
 
 Mr. Wh. affertion, when he applies him felf to the Law as a 
 competent Directory, which he could not do if he did look 
 at it, as pitching upon a Covenant of works ? 
 
 The 25. is this, No Chriftian muft be preffed to duties of 
 holineffe , which in regard of the good expedted by Mr. Wh. 
 from holines cannot be his dodtrine. 
 
 The 26. No Chriftian muft be exhorted to Faith , Love, 
 &c. admits the fame anfwer. 
 
 The 27. is, A man may have all graces and yet want 
 Chrift; Indeed he may have reprefentations of them, graces 
 cequivoce , but not true graces; and if true not as Synony¬ 
 mous to faving, but as oppofed to fained; but in the evill 
 fenfe, how can Mr. Wh. hold it, when as he attributes unto 
 graces, power to evidence Chrift ? 
 
 The 28. is, A beleivers Activity is only to aft to Jinne; 
 This pofition implies Chrift the formall principle of vertu- 
 ous Adts; which conceit wee before excufed Mr. Wh. from. 
 Indeed, how can it be afcribed to him who (as our Authour 
 tels us) oppofed this tenent (viz.) that a Chriftian is, ( that is 
 his phrafe) a dead lump not adting at all ? 
 
 * Thus I have runne through the unfavory fpeeches , * 13 
 and the firft fcroule of errours; I come to the other 
 fcroule, being 82. Why might not all thefe pofitions have been 
 put in one Number, as well as in fo many ? I fliould think, were 
 he not a New-Englandman , that he intended fome myftery 
 in the Number of 3, which he fo oft prefers, firft in his 
 Title, Rife , Raigne , Ruin , Familifts , Libertines , Antino- 
 mians , cenfures of Church, proceedings of Court, Judgments 
 of heaven upon them , and here with his three parcels; but 
 
 furely 
 
208 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 furely the good man is no Pythagorifl , but a Platonijl 
 rather, which his feparate Idecz , contempt, and fedition, not 
 properties of the men to whom he attributes them, Chime- 
 raes only of his reftleffe braine, declare him; but howfoever 
 if he did purpofe a Numerary /pell, seeing thereby he doth 
 many times repeate, I fhall conjure him downe with meere 
 Figures fomtimes: my meaning is, that in regard of the 
 recidence , not in fenfe only, but words many of them into 
 the former, I would be excufed though I do not give you a 
 Particular accompt, as before, for although our Authour 
 hath lavifhly tautologized, which perhaps may be Natural 
 to him, and fo fcarce admit a Criticifme , yet I will not trace 
 him, unwilling to oppreffe the Reader , and draw my felfe into 
 the fame height of babling; Nor let any think I hereby 
 feek elusion, verb urn fat fapienti , let fuch examine. 
 
 For the firft ten they are eafily reducible. 
 
 The ii. is, As Chrijl was once made fle/h , fo is he in us 
 ere we be carried to perfection; This proportion, as many 
 other we fhall meet withall, is wrapt in fuch myfticall terms, 
 as it fcarce falls under the common rules of conftrudtion ; 
 but if this tenet intends Hypofiaticall union , how can Mr. 
 Wh. approve it, when as by the Authours confeffion he op- 
 pofed that Dodtrine which fayes; Beleivers aCt not at all\ 
 but Chrijl ads in them , and doth (as before named) formally 
 beleive and formally repent , which Mr. Wh. could not 
 rationally contradidt, if he patronized this notion; which 
 being granted, a believer should not proximately believe 
 and repent, but Chrift muft obtaine rationem formalis prin - 
 cipii in him. 
 
 For 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 209 
 
 For the 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. to the 24. they are in the 
 categorie of thofe before pretermitted, as reducible to the 
 former. 
 
 The 24. is this, That he who hath the Seale of the Spirit 
 may judge of an eleCl perfon ; According to this Affertion, 
 one Seale muff at once make two Characters: which opin¬ 
 ion I muff tel mine Author plainly, his principles, and his 
 parties, rather lead to then Mr. Wh. for a refpeClive impref 
 fion, in order to graces inherent, (fuch as theirs is pretended) 
 may in al reafon fooner by the fame virtue wherby it thews 
 to one his own Election, fhow to him the Election of an¬ 
 other in whom the fame perfections may be apparent, then 
 an IrrefpeClive & abfolute impreffion , fuch as Mr. Wh. is 
 accounted, as will be feene in their opinions concerning 
 evidence of falvation; however, how can Mr. Wh. own this, 
 unleffe he either think Gods eternall Decree attendeth fome 
 quality, the Symbolicalneffe of which might direCt him . 
 in his cenfure ? or unleffe he hold Immediat * revela- # 14 
 tions without the Word, within it there being no such 
 pertinences ? Or unleffe he prefume to look in fpeculo Trin- 
 itatis ? Which Mr. Welds feems to do, whileft he tels us what 
 God hath pardoned in heaven, and to whom he purpofes his 
 immediate punifhments on earth. 
 
 By our Reafon of coincidence we paffe to the 28. which is 
 the firft we can find challenging a particular anfwer, and that 
 fcarcely too; it is this : To affrm, there mujl be faith on 
 mans part, to receive Chrift, is to undermine Chrift: this is 
 nothing, but an efflux of the former fancie of hypoftaticall 
 union; the use of faith is to apprehend Chrift fub conceptu 
 
 fortnali: 
 
2 10 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 for mail: the effeft of which is a fpirituall union, not at 
 all in that which may be more phyjically looked at, viz. the 
 hypojlaticall: The next confiderable is the 33., which is this. 
 To aid by vertue of a command is legall. This is Mr. Wh: 
 which taken C7im grano falis , will be favoury enough. Let 
 us know to aft legally may be taken two wayes: Vel non 
 attendendo principium effeclivum atdionis , vel formate five 
 exemplare. In the firft Reafon, they aft legally who think 
 to do things in their own ftrength formally. In the fecond, 
 they aft legally who think to do fo confirutdive , and by way 
 of interpretation, fuch as the Gofpels young man , who did 
 fulfill the Commandments fub ratione particulari. In 
 which aft he expefted vertue from Chrift, and fo in the firft 
 fenfe afted not legally. But he did not, fub ratione magis 
 univerfali , & eminentiori , and therefore he afted legally in 
 my fecond fenfe. In his Acceffe to the Law under its typicall 
 and immediate pretence, was his ewofia in his receffe from it 
 under its reflexive intention , and true Evangelicall Tropolo- 
 gie was his avofia. To aft legally is to recede from the 
 virtue, by which one is to aft; which virtue of Chrift is vel 
 Chrifii tanquam ejficientis , vel tanquam Idece. To aft by 
 vertue of a command, that is, immediately from it, is, Vel 
 immediatione virtutis , vel fuppofiti: they who aft by ftrength 
 of a command in this firft fenfe, attend not Chrift either in 
 the reafon of an efficient or Idece, and fo muft needs aft 
 legally both wayes. For the command hath a twofold habi¬ 
 tude , directive and objective, he who afts immediately from 
 the directive order of the Law, afts legally, non attingendo 
 Chrifium ut Ideam : he who afts immediately from the ob - 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 211 
 
 jedlive , acts legally, Non attingendo Chrifium , ut efficientem . 
 And thus its true, to aft by virtue of a command is legall; 
 but if it be meant immediatione fuppojiti (not that I think 
 a command hath properly fuppojitalitie , but onely aliquid 
 Analogum , which reaches my notion and intent) it is not 
 true, that to aft by virtue of a command is legall. 
 
 The next confiderable is the 41. which is this: There be 
 diflindl feafons of the workings of the perfons in the facred 
 Trinity, fo that a man may be faid to be thus long under the 
 work of the Father , and thus long tinder the work of the 
 Son , and thus long under the work of the holy Ghofl . If by 
 this, we are fo long under the Father, be intended onely an 
 exclufion of the Son in fome eminence , and degree of 
 at- * tribution. It is not againft that received maxime , * 15 
 Opera Trinitatis ad extra funt indivifa: and the gener- 
 all opinion of Divines excufes it from a paradox; For what 
 more common then to attribute redemption to the Son ? con- 
 folation to the holy Ghofl? What more ufuall then to fay, 
 the Father humbles, the Son raifes up, the holy Ghofl com¬ 
 forts ? Touching which, I thus conceive; that the very 
 fame individed effence as it doth put on divers reafons or 
 notions (as the Schoolmen fpeak) is faid to perform divers 
 aftions not by a fimple exclufion of the A ttributes of any of 
 them in this or that Aft, but onely fecundum quid\ Notion- 
 ally , as we may conceive, according to the common quid- 
 ditie. The Father is in himfelf, and fo produces a Son of 
 comfort, by refleftion, he loves that iffue, and fo educeth 
 illumination; in this fenfe, Opera ad extra funt divifa , for 
 from the divifion ad intra , why may there not follow a pro- 
 
 portionall 
 
212 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 portionall divifion ad extra too? feeing the relations of 
 thofe divided adts are reall, and extra intelledlum , which 
 would otherwife plead Reafon for their limitation ; I say why 
 may they not have fome effedt upon the adts ad extra too ? 
 and make them in fome fenfe divifa ? And if it be im¬ 
 proper to fay, Dcus eft trium perfonarum , but onely effentia 
 eft trium , &c, why may there not be fome impropriety to fay 
 (I mean in oppofition to the above-named Dodlrine) that, 
 Deus eft triu 7 n Adluam refpedtively, when as thefe adts do 
 in the common opinion attend thofe relations ? But if an 
 abfolute and fimple divifion be intended, Mr. Wk. cannot 
 hold it; when (as it is very abfurd in it felf, fo) his dodtrine 
 of evidence by fandtiftcation , where there muft be Chrifts 
 attradlive , and the Spirits illuminative power, and of fignes 
 which require a concurrence, proclaims. 
 
 The next is this, Conditionall promifes are legall: If it 
 be meant that they are in a legall form, its true, whether 
 caufaliter or confequutive; But if it be meant that they are 
 legall virtually , and fo not to be made ufe of in the time of 
 the G of pel, how can Mr. Wh: hold it, when as he grants 
 evidence from graces, conditionall promifes being the cur¬ 
 rent wherein fuch evidences paffe ? 
 
 The next confiderable is this: to lay the Brethren under 
 a covenant of works hurts not at all ’ but tends to much good. 
 What did I fay confiderable ? a pofition ftrangely produced 
 as it were in an indifference twixt truth and errour: if it be 
 prefented as an errour, we muft needs by reafon of the in- 
 definitenes of the phrafe fuppofe all Brethren to be under a 
 covenant of grace. If it be a truth, what doth it among 
 
 errours ? 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 213 
 
 errours ? to make even number ? What fhall we fay ? its 
 neither true nor falfe, but hands in a pure precifion; he 
 imagined though perhaps that the confinity of errours 
 (wherein obferve how his malice multiplies herefies upon 
 them) would determine its neutrality , and hereupon ingages 
 at once all his Metaphyjicks to effedt an abftradtion 
 which he might # have referved till an exigence, and # i6 
 in the mean while have referred this Janus to the 
 unfavoury fpeeches with which it mod fymbolizes. But he 
 was afraid, left it fo eafily feafonable either way, fhould have 
 feafoned them, which he prefers to difrelifh the appetite of 
 the Reader , to the parties concerned in his Narration. But 
 he faith, if it be good to lay the Brethren under a Covenant 
 of works, then it is good to bite one another: which argu¬ 
 ment is much like one of his brats he hangs up againd the 
 Sun. 
 
 The next is this: Faith jujiifies an unbeleever. If the 
 fenfe be, that the faith fubjedted in Chrid judifies me in 
 whom there is not any, its falfe: if you take it in Jenfu com- 
 pojito , it is fo, if in divifo , its true. I wonder fuch grave 
 difcurdds (as my Author by his ffcyle feems) fhould with 
 thefe poore fubtilties put us upon fuch elementary diftinc- 
 Hons, in refolving which Simthis Logick will claim a prin- 
 cipall fhare. But perhaps he did it to evade a more folid 
 reply, thinking no Eagle would catch fuch dyes. Which 
 way of his is in the mean time my advantage, whiled by 
 medling only in my fphere I cannot be faid to prefume, 
 which incourages me yet to tell him that this opinion is a 
 
 confeRarie 
 
214 Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 con/ePtarie of theirs, who deny graces in the Saints, not of 
 Mr. Wh: dodlrine who grants them. 
 
 The reft of the Affertions are either coincident, or fuch 
 as concern Church Difcipline, wherein difagreement is not 
 pretended. 
 
 Thus we have done with his pretended err ours. Now we 
 come to his pretended Crimes, viz. contempt and /edition; 
 which the Court pickt out of a Sermon of his, he preached 
 upon a Fad-day defigned for peace, the fubftance whereof 
 was this: Chrifts abfence is a main caufe of fading, there¬ 
 fore labour for him revealed in the Covenant of grace; 
 peace is to be fought in fuch a drawing neer the God of 
 peace; and oppofe thofe by contending for the faith, but 
 fpiritually, who go the way of the Covenant of works (as in 
 that thing) (wherein indeed they are oppofite to the end of 
 the day) as enemies to grace, and in that refpedl perfecuters 
 of Chrid, as (which word I fuppofe is, ftcut qualitatis onely) 
 Herod , Pilat , and the Jews. This is the doPtrine wherein 
 the fpirit of /edition and contempt breathes according to 
 their opinion; I will therefore briefly leaving the fuller dif- 
 cuffion to Statifls , (by fome of which Mr. Wh: hath been 
 already cleared,) examine. 
 
 Contemptus eft ex hoc quod aliquis renuit ftibjici legi 
 bonce; conferre, the Magidrates publifh a Fad in order to 
 peace, whether this publication have the compleat Nature 
 of a Law, let others determine. But admit, Mr. Wh: 
 whiled he tels them, peace is the mod eadly attainable in 
 Chrift , to whom they mud apply themfelves in a Covenant 
 of grace, twarts not their Law, unleffe it had expreffed the 
 
 method 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 215 
 
 method which the Minifier muft ufe, or unleffe Mr. 
 
 Wh: # had done that, the contrary of which it did *17 
 neceffarily imply ; But there is no fuch matter, for in 
 his generall terme, a Covenant of grace , he could not be in¬ 
 ordinate, but admit explication , though it might render fuf- 
 pition of unfoundneffe in dodlrine; yet not fufpition, much 
 leffe apparency of difobedience to civill difcipline, therefore 
 what negledt of Authority was here, when neither the ex- 
 preffion nor conftruftive intention of their Mandate was 
 croffed ? Or, if it had been, yet not the primary end, and 
 fo could not confHtute fuch an offence: As for finis oper- 
 antis , the ends they themfelves referved, how could he attend ? 
 unleffe we either fuppofe a coincidence , or unleffe they think 
 it requifite, Clergie-men fhould ftudy Myfieries of State , or 
 unleffe (which they feem to abhor) he fhould have expedled 
 immediate revelation of them? [ Renuit ] he will not; that 
 prefuppofes admonition, and fuppofes contumacie, Mr. Wh: 
 had no fuch preparatories; If he had reiterated the dif- 
 courfe, though innocent, there had been more pretence . 
 But grant further he had, yet a meer repetition makes not 
 frequency ; But admit, yet frequentia peccati non facitpecca- 
 tum ex contemptu , fed difponit ad hoc: according to Aqui¬ 
 nas. It is far then from contempt, which is not fo much as 
 a bare difpofition towards it ? what if he did (this as a fup- 
 pofition, onely) decline the next purpofe of the day ? yet if 
 he did reach it more eminently by fetting up Chrifi , whofe 
 abfence he told them was the caufe of fafting, muft he have 
 thefe crimes attributed to him, becaufe he did fo concifely 
 compleat their defires ? might they not have taken up them¬ 
 felves 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 216 
 
 felves twixt his fuppofed receffe , and relapfe before they pro¬ 
 ceeded to cenfure ? But our Author faith; (pag. 52. wherein 
 he intends aggravation) whereas Mr . Cotton urged peace , 
 Mr. Wh: contention in the afternoon: Yes, but it was fpir- 
 ituall, and for a Covenant of grace too: the way of peace, 
 as in that generality, cannot be denyed. The fpirits of men 
 in Winter (as it was then) have too much afperity in the 
 morning to be trufted with zealotifmes , which in the after¬ 
 noon their more mollified difpofitions may admit: but more 
 ferionjly: what would this man have by this circumjlance ? 
 where is the fence of it ? or how aggravates it ? would he 
 have had Mr. Wh: Text to have been impofed by the 
 Court ? were not that to limit the Spirit ? or would he have 
 had him betwixt forenoon and evening Exercife, not being 
 half an houres fpace, by reafon of the directive Sermon, to 
 have purified his meditations into fuch a complexion ? Or 
 would he have had him feeing there was no time, to change 
 his text , or his Notions, to have defified before his paroxyfme? 
 Alas! fo the Church as well as the State might have appre¬ 
 hended contempt. Or if he had in fuch an Auditory ad¬ 
 ventured upon an extemporarie difcourfe, would not your 
 Moderatfis confirudlion have pitched upon negledi? But 
 what need of all this ? Mr. Cotton and He agreed in 
 * 18 * the main, both their labours directed to the fame 
 fcope, (viz. to bring men to Chrift , the difference of 
 preci/ion , and degrees of heat allowed : fo that if his Sermon 
 offered violence to the day, yet where is that which is pre¬ 
 tended to the State? Admit incongruity, yet where is the 
 contempt ? If it had been any thing, it had rather been in- 
 
 difcretion 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 2 I 7 
 
 difcretion then contempt; and rather indifpojition than indif- 
 cretion. 
 
 But they fay, By thofe under a covenant of works, he 
 meant them, fome Magiftrates and fome Minifiers ; and that 
 he knew they went the way which he defcribed to be a cove¬ 
 nant of works . Admit, yet his expreffions from the Pulpit 
 in the common Rules of conftrudtion can have no fuch 
 reference: Or fuppofe they might have reference, yet not 
 of caiifality but connexion onely, which would give no ad¬ 
 vantage to feczilar power, or Ecclefeafiicall either. But 
 further, grant a reference of caufality , that may be con¬ 
 cerned in the Authority of the keyes, not of the Court. 
 
 He inftances in that difference of Proteftants and Pa- 
 pifis, fub una & fub utraq:, as a paralell cafe ; but it is not, 
 for thofe tearms did denote upon the free acknowledgement 
 of the right of their refpedlive attributions: it is not fo in 
 this matter, where the phrafe Under the Covenant of works, 
 is not confeffed by the Magiftrates , &c. as their condition; 
 therefore to fay under a covenant of works, and under a cov¬ 
 enant of grace, is not as much as to fay, Magiftrates, &c. 
 and fome others, there being much diftance twixt this occa- 
 fion and the former. 
 
 He would at length puzzle the people with fubtilties, 
 whil’ft he talks of defignation to common intendments, fay¬ 
 ing, That which defigns a man to common intendments doth 
 as much as if it fiould name the man; Which phrafe if 
 applyed muft prefume, that the Magiffcrats and Minifters 
 he pleads for, are by that member of the divifion under a 
 Covenant of works: commonly intended, A pretty peece of 
 
 work, 
 
 28 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 218 
 
 work, wherein to give you his upfhot, firft he contradicts 
 himfelf, fecondly, totally excufes Mr. Wh. thirdly, he ac- 
 cufes his own partie more than ever any did. A brave 
 Champion, firft he contradicts himfelf in faying, thefe things 
 were never heard of before Mr. Wh. came into the country ; 
 p. 24. whereas it feems it was vox populi before, for he was 
 then but newly arrived, and this the firft time he (hewed 
 himfelf in that publick way. 
 
 Secondly, he excufeth Mr. Wh. for when to ftopp his 
 mouth, we had halfe allowed him indiferetion in that Ser¬ 
 mon of Mr. Wh. yet he will needs cleere him from it, by 
 implying that through the common rumour of Magiftrates , 
 &c. walking the way of the Covenant of works, there might 
 be occafion miniftred unto him, and need for fuch a dif- 
 courfe. 
 
 Thirdly, he accufeth both the Magiftrates and Min- 
 # 19 ifters, more then any # yet did, by intimating a prece¬ 
 dent continued, and manifeft addiction of theirs to 
 Legalifme , whil’ft he declares them commonly intended by 
 that expreffion, under a Covenant of works , and by the gen- 
 erall opinion of the people wrapt in it. 
 
 This was a great overfight, unleffe by a check of his 
 confidence fuggefting Mr. Wh. innocencie, he was moved 
 to vindicate him fecretly from crime, and therefore would 
 myfiically do it in the word Intendment , to purge his heart 
 frcm malignity of opinion. 
 
 And whereas he faith, p. 25. The former Magiftrates and 
 Minifters had great difref pelt after Mr. Wh. his Sermon , 
 which he faith, was the caufe of it. 
 
 I 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 2 19 
 
 I anfwer, Firft, It is not known that ever they had any 
 notable negledt. 
 
 Secondly, Admit, yet his inference may intitle the Gof 
 pel to fedition. 
 
 Thirdly, The inequality of obfervance did not proceed 
 from any effect Mr. Wh. Sermon had upon them; as in 
 that inftance of the Halberds , the former Governor having 
 more carried before him then his fitccejfour ; and in the 
 expeditions againft the Pequeds , but from the affedlion 
 which fome defigned to thofe offices, bore to the then 
 Governor Sr. He: Vain , who by his noble, affable and dif- 
 cret carriage, ingaged their utmoft attendance; where ob- 
 ferve the edge of Malice, which when it dare not fuppreffed 
 by fear, openly, yet fecretly it will fix, though he do not 
 inroll Sr. Henry amongft Familifis, &c. Though he will 
 not fay, he was fuch a Sectary , yet whilft he talks of his 
 preferment above the following Governor , as an Iffue of 
 Mr. Wh: Sermon, upon his own premiffes , he neceffarily 
 inferrs it. 
 
 And wheras he faith, That before Mr. Wh. came over , 
 all things were peaceable , after his arrivall nothing but 
 divi/ion. I anfwer: Firft, he contradicts himfelf, for he 
 tels us Mrs. Hutchinfon vented her Opinions in the fhip 
 as file came over, pa. 31. he tels us, file drew many to her, 
 pa. 32. he tels us, file procured countenance from eminent 
 perfons, pa. 33. hence (faith he) was the trouble to the Paf 
 tor of Bofton , &c. hence, faith he, Mr. Wh: took courage to 
 inveigh in his Sermon , &c. It feems then there was Divi- 
 fions before Mr. Wh: Sermon, and that it was an effedf of 
 
 them 
 
220 
 
 Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 them rather then a caufe. Secondly, there was a company 
 in the Bay before he came, who upon fuppofition of 2 par¬ 
 ties, one under the Covenant of works , the other themfelves 
 under the Covenant of grace , had refolved upon fchifme, 
 expedling onely a beck from the Pulpit; which when by 
 reafon of Mr. Wh: naming a Covenant of works and of 
 grace , (though not with any fuch pertinence, their prepared 
 phanfies , thought they had) they took this I doll of their 
 own brains, for a providence of heaven, and hereupon facri- 
 ficed their premeditated endeavours to it, as it had been the 
 Image which fell down from Jupiter; which doing of 
 # 20 theirs Mr. Wh: was not acceffary to, their pre- * tended 
 Covenant of grace being compofed of errours , his cov¬ 
 enant of grace which to decline legalifme he preferred, being 
 free from them, carrying along with it the grace of the cove¬ 
 nant. He tels us, pa. 26. of a writing which much con¬ 
 cerned Mr. Wh: to read, that might be; it may be it was 
 our Authors, for all his (as he faith of his book) are necef- 
 fary for States, much more for private perfo 7 is ; but it feems 
 Mr. Wh: was fo dull as not to conceive the neceffity, for he 
 did not read it, as we are told; what then ? perhaps he was 
 otherwife imployed: But what faies the man ? Which did 
 argue (faith he) the height and pride of his fpirit: what 
 need thefe fynonyma ? were not pride enough ? this argues 
 my Authors malice and virulencie; but is he not afhamed 
 to talk ftill of arguing, when his Independent brain bath s 
 bewrayed fuch inconfequence ? Let him never think here¬ 
 after with any judicious Reader to be reputed for a fyllo- 
 gifl: but if he think he fhall hide his talent unleffe he 
 
 imploy 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 22 I 
 
 imploy the Preffe, let him rather (as one faid) write meer 
 hijlory , and fuch too where in partiall ref pedis may not 
 byaffe him to errour. Which way (as though he prefaged 
 diflike of his co 7 itroverfall difcourfes) he hath already taken 
 in his book , now at the Preffe, called, A Narration of the 
 pradlife of N. E. wherein he may do (as in things that fall 
 under his fenfe) much better, then in polemicatl Effayes, 
 where he doth but lofe himfelf, and over-ballace his muddy 
 intelledluals. 
 
 Nay fo vaft is my Author in his apprehenfion of pernicious 
 effedls from Mr. Wh: Sermon, that he would make people 
 beleeve, it not onely moved all Societies on the Land, but 
 that it had its influence upon vejfels at Sea (thats hisphrafe) 
 How , faith he , did it hinder all affairs in Courts , in Towns , 
 in Families , in vejfels at Sea? pa, 58. As though it had 
 been like that commotion of the earth lately there, which 
 Ships at a great diflance felt; as though Mr. Wh: had 
 made an Earthquake amongft them. Whereas (which I 
 hope the Reader will conceive) it was nothing but N E cald 
 a Trepidation of the fpheres in that New Heaven , a New 
 &c. Heaven ‘ 
 
 Another pretended crime of his, is fedition, which is thus 
 defined : Seditio eft prceparatio ad impugnationem corpora - 
 lem; A preparation to a bodily fight: now how did Mr. 
 Wh: Sermon prepare for fuch a fight ? He bids them in¬ 
 deed in the Apoflles expreffion contend for the faith, &c. 
 but he defignes (as before we file wed) no parties. Or if he 
 had, it was to a fpirituall confiidl, as he explain’d himfelf, 
 which re fp eels not civill unity, or unit atem Juris, as fedition 
 
 doth, 
 
222 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 doth, but Ecclejiajlique; and fo at the moft it could be but 
 fchifme; and not that neither, unleffe his dodlrine be proved 
 contra utilitatem , and fo be errour. Nay, that is not enough 
 neither, unleffe it were in fundamentals , and fo might be 
 called herejie; for fchifma alwayes Jibi aliquant confingat 
 herejin , fchifme is ever attended with herejie in the opinion 
 of the learned: nor is all this fufficient to bring it under 
 the cenfure of the Church it felf, unleffe it be per fe 
 # 21 # intentum: for that which is per accidens , no more in 
 
 morals than in Naturals, can conftitute a fpecies , fuch as 
 facred Authority mufl proceed upon ; as I faid before of con¬ 
 tempt , fo of this, if it had been any thing it had rather been 
 faction then fedition, and rather fchifme then faction. Before 
 my Author propound his reafons wherby he would fallen 
 thefe crimes upon Mr. Wh: he wifely premifes thus; faith 
 he, p. 52. Such as would receive fatisfaction may , if they 
 will read that which follows , &c. carrying this along with 
 them , that the aids, &c. He faith true in this, fuch as 
 come prejudicate and prefuming neceffity of juflice from 
 N. E . may fatisfie themfelves in his Apology) but as for 
 others, let them attend his defcriptions, and it will appear 
 they do as little fit Mr. Wh: practice as his examples. Se- 
 ditiofus (faith he) eft qui facit diffenftonem animorum: good 
 in it felf, but applyed rudiori Minerva , if it be taken rightly, 
 viz. Diffention in or dine ad civilem unit atem : left fedition 
 and fchifme be confounded, and the word facit be fo quali¬ 
 fied . as to exclude accidentall, occafionall, and periftaticall 
 adlion upon mens minds, it concerns not Mr. Wh: cafe, it 
 being neceffary too, (which I may adde) that it be not onely 
 
 motu 
 
Mercurius Americanus . 
 
 223 
 
 motu prcevio , but concomitativo, which is moil intrinfick, and 
 of the formal reafon of velleitie which muft be fuppofed at 
 the lead in fuch a crime, his other defcriptions, cum fcevit 
 populus, &c. and cum eunt alii in aliud, call for the fame 
 redridlions, and refer to the firft. 
 
 He exemplifies to as little purpofe, as in Demetrius his 
 fedition, and Corah with his complices: this is much like 
 his fub una & fub utraque , as little paralell where he intends, 
 Demetrms named the man, This Paul\ &c. And fo did 
 Korah particularize, Mr. Wh: nothing fo, he onely fpake 
 in theji, the Hypothejis was their own, the application was 
 theirs. My Author cannot make it appear their cafes are 
 alike, unleffe he refume his fublime Notion of Dejignation 
 to common intendments, &c. by which he might falve the 
 Phenomena ; but we have tried that before. 
 
 That which he faith, viz . my Author , of Mr. Wh: vehe- 
 mencie of fpirit , and voyce in proclaiming them perfecuters, 
 and A n tic hr if ia n , who walk the way of a covenant of works, 
 it muft be reckoned amongft his impertinences, feeing the 
 degree doth not vary the kind; let him be as urgent as he 
 pleafeth. Salva ratione fidei, falva fpecie, whiled he keeps 
 within that univerfality againd thofe which are Legalifts 
 which he did and onely did, let me ufe my Authors main 
 Argument, which we meet with prefently. Put the cafe in 
 a Reverfed Frame, if my Author had darned in zeal never 
 fo much againd Mr. Wh: Sermon, or fome of the Opinion- 
 ids, would he have admitted that as a topicke of Sedition ? 
 In fuch a particularization which is more than he can bx 
 upon Mr. Wh: would not the equity of his caufe have been 
 
 his 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 224 
 
 his plea ? Doth he not therefore rove a little in this dif- 
 courfe ? if vehemencie of fpirit and voice infer /edition, 
 *22 it will be dangerous * to have good Lungs; let my 
 Author take heed he intrench not upon his Divinity 
 tenure , and infcribe that to crime which intitles him to the 
 Pulpit. But Mr. Wh: his vehemencie made him not exor¬ 
 bitant, he mift not the cujhion , nor was he fo fierce as my 
 Author was when he faid, Lye with him DevilL\ fleep with 
 him Devill , &c. Mr. Wh: promoted a Covenant of grace by 
 a fpirituall profiration of its oppofites. Aud this in gen- 
 erall too, this is all he did: what, Pretenders to fo much 
 charitie, Reformation, Chriftian liberty ? &c. A new 
 Heaven and a new Earth (as fome faid of them) and fo, 
 KaT igoxvv celeftiall , arraign, fentence, imprifon, banifh a 
 man of their Church too? And as though this were not 
 enough, Inftare morienti to fame him an Heretique , Anti- 
 nomian , feditious perfon, what not? and this in print, with 
 all poffible difgrace and diminution; and that after he had 
 repented too (as is confeffed) one upon whom he faith he 
 would not reflect anything, his meaning is, I fuppofe, that 
 the rayes of his malice fhould fall diredlly upon Mr. Wh: 
 and all this for fo fmall a matter ? Tanta fallacia ? &c. 
 May I not retort, Tantcene animis coeleftibus ircz? His 
 following difcourfe is a P anegyrick of difcretiim , which he 
 by his ufuall clapping together of Scriptures magnifies the 
 more, becaufe he conceives it wanting in Mr. Wh. But 
 how comes it in here under his title, viz. a Proof of 
 Sedition and contempt? furely he doth not think that in- 
 difcretion involveth contempt. What doth this curious 
 
 Impertinent 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 22 5 
 
 Impertinent mean ? I fhould think that there were a 
 fecret and eneigeticall fubjidence of all into this vice, and 
 that in his opinion too, if he had not (as we before fhewed) 
 cleared Mr. Wh. from fuch offence. See how confufed the 
 man is, he would convidl him of contempt, and yet vindi¬ 
 cates him from indifcretion, as though that could be with¬ 
 out this, what he means by difcretion I know not. But if 
 it be that which is ufually called fpirituall difcerning, my 
 Author did ufe to annex it to the tribe, &c. 
 
 His laft and main ftratagem whereby he will prevail upon 
 the moft prejudicate, apd fcrupulous fpirits , is to put the 
 cafe (as he faith) in a rev erfed frame , his words are thefe : 
 p. 57. But if any fhall yet pretend want of fatisfaction, 
 &c. put the cafe in a reverfed frame if fome others had 
 taught it, &c. would not Mr . Wh: and, &c. have looked 
 at themfelves as intended? Yes furely, for a proper adjundl 
 may defigne a particular company, as well as names, as Judas 
 by the fop. This is an excellent devife: A conjecture what 
 Mr. Wh: and the other partie would have faid upon the 
 like inveCtive : I know not what they would have faid, &c. 
 nor do I know what to fay to this his mafter-peece of put¬ 
 ting the cafe, &c. unleffe I fhould put it into the cafe. Quid 
 dignum tanto ? &c. Shall we negledl it ? No, the necefjity 
 of the times may call for it, it is the very diftilled quintef- 
 fence of his brain, his Catholicon. We will (if we can) 
 fqueeze fome fenfe out of it, or at the leaffc leave it in a 
 capacitie ; if it have any force for the prefent, we muft 
 # fuppofe our Author knows , per fpecies concreatas: *23 
 But I would not reflect zip on him, (as he of Mr. Wh:) 
 
 29 
 
 as 
 
226 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 as though he had no more wit than he was born with: But 
 what if he knew what they would fay, fhall their pradlife, or 
 fpeech, which may (as they are men) proceed from paffion 
 diredl yours ? If they fliould take offence at a little forward - 
 neffe, freene/fe, and irrefpeclivenejfe of difcourfe, and beat it 
 out as you have done into /edition and contempt , fhall that 
 be your Apologie? Are a company of Fami Lifts, Libertines , 
 &c. fo atithe 7 itick ? If it muff be fo, let Mr. Wh: or fome 
 So ac _ others fend word what they would fay, and this great 
 counted oration of my Authors , even tota hcec Roma ruit cum 
 m N ‘ e* viribus fuis: of all his coincidences , impertinences, foie- 
 cifmes , fruitleffe and weak ebullitions , this is the worft, for 
 thofe may be adled upon, and refined by wit. But as for 
 this, it may hand eternally before it can receive a good con - 
 ftrudtion , all the colour and appearance of reafon it can ad¬ 
 mit, muft be expedled in a meffage from New England , 
 declaring what they would fay, &c. My Author might do 
 well, to compa/fe Sea to make a Profelite , to go himfelf 
 thither and procure an expreffe , but I doubt he will not, his 
 mind doth fo run upon the fop: where I leave him; And 
 in the mean time I leave this high ftrain of his, if the 
 winds and feas favour in a poffibilitie of being cloathed with 
 a little kind of fenfe , or the beft kind of nonfenfe: Alas! 
 poore argtiment . The cafe in a reverfed Frame might bet¬ 
 ter have been kept in the cafe then dut into the Frame. 
 
 He concludes this difcourfe thus ; That to lay thofe under 
 a Covenant of works , who have fuffered as much as himfelf, 
 favours not of a brotherly fpirit , p. 58. This can be looked 
 at no otherwayes then as an impertinence too if the Apoftle 
 
 fpeak 
 
Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 227 
 
 fpeak truth : If I give my body to be burnt, &c. I do not 
 ingage myfelf in the difpute, &c. onely I fay utcunque his 
 conclufion is not conclufive: he makes bad premifes , and 
 worfe conclufion . 
 
 Seeing thefe things are fo, that there is fo little ground 
 for these pretended crimes , feeing there can be no contempt 
 found in Mr. Wh. Sermon . we will rather impute the un- 
 deferved cenfures to fome other caufe then to the meer 
 malice of the Court , which fome uncharitably do. 
 
 Whether it were a ftrong imagination of the then Deputy 
 upon Mr. Wh: which by the power annexed to phanjie pro¬ 
 duced fome contemptuous behaviour in him while he was 
 before them ? 
 
 Or whether it were that he, viz. the Deputy , being then 
 occafionally in contemplation of contempt , and prefuming of 
 the infallibility of his fcience , being (as he thought it) not 
 Jimplicis intelligenticz (which is more likely) but vijionis , 
 which in that reafon muff have aliquid externum de facto 
 reprefentative of it, thereupon pitched on contempt , as Mr. 
 Wh: delinquencie. 
 
 Or whether it were (which is probable , in the def- 
 picableneffe of the State , * and efpecially of the then * 24 
 Deputie , late Governor , and in regard of the affedtion 
 of the people, and that defervedly) to that worthy gentleman 
 then Governour , Sir Hen: Vain , unlikely to return into 
 that preferment fpeedily; I fay, whether in regard of his 
 condition, his melancholy temper , feconded, as obferved, by 
 a fullen conflellation then predominant, he did abfolutely 
 determine he was contemned , fome way, or other, and fo 
 
 cum 
 
228 
 
 Mercurius Americanus. 
 
 cum nemini obtrudi potuit , he charged it upon Mr. Wh: 
 And fo /edition, by way of concomitance ; Sedition and con¬ 
 tempt being twins, as he ufed to fay; howfoever Mr. Wh: 
 was fentenced guilty of the faults , and thereupon bani/ht , 
 imprifoned firft: upon requeft indeed difmiffed to his fam¬ 
 ily, not to flay though above twelve dayes upon pain of 
 ftridteft cenfure , although in a remote place, where they could 
 not fear any effedl from the pretended vices, &c. And 
 although in fo cold a feafon of the yeer, wherein I think, 
 had he had the very extracted fpirits of /edition, and con¬ 
 tempt, they would have been frozen up, and indifpofd for 
 Action. 
 
 Thus faith my Author , p. 43. it pleafed the Lord to hear 
 his poore people, whofe fouls had wept in fecret, for the re¬ 
 proach, &c. I defire to know of Mr. Welds what he means 
 by pleafing of the Lord ? whether ratione voluntatis Deter- 
 minantis, vel determinates l In the mean while, let the 
 Reader judge whether he have not caufe to weep not onely 
 in fecret, but openly for the reproaches which he hath caft 
 upon fome. He goes on thus: It is the Lords doings, and 
 it is marvellous in our eyes. Mr. Wh. is gone to Pafcal, 
 &c. what then? it was neither contra, nor preeter, nor fupra 
 naturam, for Mr. Wh: to go to Pafcal: where is the won¬ 
 der l I confeffe it was marvellous he got thither at that 
 time, when they expelled him, by reafon of the deep jhow in 
 which he might have periflied. Whether my Author pro¬ 
 fane not Scripture in this, I will refer it to thofe whom 
 in the fame page he fpeaks of, Viz his dear and beloved 
 Brethren. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
WHEELWRIGHT’S WILL. 
 
 The laft will & Testam* of y e Reverend m r John 
 Wheellwright, who: died y e 15 th of Novem br 
 1679. 
 
 In y e name of god Amen 
 
 May y e 25 : 1679 
 
 JOHN WHEELLRIGHT Paffo r of y e 
 church of Chrift att Salifbury in y e County of 
 Norfolk in Newengland although aged in 
 yeares & weake in body yet pfedt in & of a 
 difpofed minde: Doe make & declare this 
 to bee my laft will & Teftamen* in writing: Revokeing all 
 my former wills & teftaments whatfoever hereto fore by 
 mee made & declared: ffirft I doe contend my Soule into 
 y e hands of all mighty god, confidently beleiuing in him to 
 bee faved through ye riches of his grace by faith in Jefus 
 Chrift my Savio r & redeemer: my body I comitt to y e 
 Earth in an affuered hope of a bleffed refurredtion of y e 
 fame at y e laft day to enjoy that happie fruition of f king- 
 dome p r pared in heaven for all his eledt 
 
 As 
 
230 
 
 Wheelwright*s Will . 
 
 As concerning my eftate lands, & worldly goods: I will 
 & do difpofe of them as followeth 
 
 1. I doe giue vnto my grand child Edward Lyde that part 
 of my Meffuage being & fcituate in Mumby in Lincoln- 
 fheire in ould England w ch part conifts of Ten acres of 
 pafture lijng & beeing in Langhum, bee it more or lefs, & 
 all y t land of mine w c lieth in Minge with the lands of m r 
 Newcomin being in Mumby for w ch my pafture in Minge 
 y e f d Newcomin payeth mee three povnds W annfi as ap¬ 
 pear eth by a leafe w c hee hath of it, & it is my will that my 
 aforef d Grand childe Edward Lyde fliall have y e aforef d 
 part w th all y e privilidges & appurtenances thervnto beelong¬ 
 ing to him & his heires for ever, pVided that y e f d Lyde do 
 pay or caufe to bee payd vnto his mother Mary Attkinfon 
 or her order the anuall rent or pduce of y e fay’d lands duering 
 y e terme of her naturall life, but in cafe that Edward Lyde 
 fhould die before he cometh to y e age of twenty one yeares, 
 then I doe giue ye lands afore mentioned vnto my Sone 
 Samuell Wheelwright vnto himfelfe & his heires forever 
 hee paying or caufing to bee payd y e rent & produce of the 
 fai’d lands vnto my daughter Attkinfon duering y e continu¬ 
 ance of her naturall life. 
 
 2. I doe giue & bequeath vnto my grand daughter Mary 
 Mavericke all y e reft of my land being part of y e aforefai’d 
 meffuage lijng and fcituate in Mumby aforef d My houfe w th 
 all y e pafture arrable meadow & coihones with all privilidges 
 & appurtenances therevnto belonging to that part of my mef¬ 
 fuage being lately in y e occupation of Earft and his 
 widdow, vnto y e f d Mary Mavericke & vnto her & her 
 heires forever, who of her body fhalbe Lawfully begotten 
 
 3 - 
 
231 
 
 Wheelwright's Will . 
 
 3. I doe giue & bequeath vnto my fone in law Edw: 
 Rifhworth fifty acres of vpland & twenty acres of marfh 
 land: & my will is after his deceafe I doe giue y e f d land & 
 meadow w th all y e privilidges & appurtenances thereto 
 belonging vnto * Mary White my grand childe daughter of 
 y e f d Rifhworth to her & her heires for ever, & for want of 
 fuch heires I giue it vnto my fone Sam 1 . 1 . Wheelwright & 
 his heires for ever w ch vpland & meadow is thus to bee 
 divided lijng in y e townfhip of Wells, y e bounds on y e 
 South weft is Ogunquet River & foe to runne y e breadth 
 of my farme in that part of it vntill y e fifty acres of up¬ 
 land bee compleated, & twenty acres of marfh to runne 
 y e full breadth lijng vpon y e Wefterly end of my farme 
 next adjoyning to or neare y e Eftermoft part of y e f d land 
 
 4. I doe giue & bequeath unto my grand childeren 
 Thomas & Jacob Bradbury forty pounds fterlg: a peece 
 to each of them in currant money of New-england, by my 
 Executo r when they doe come vnto y e age of x one & 
 twenty x years, either of them dijng before they doe come 
 to that age then y e pfon Surviueing fhall haue y e whole • 
 fowerfcore pounds 
 
 5.. I do giue & bequeath vnto my fone Sam 1 . 1 . Wheel¬ 
 wright of Wells all my land lijng in y e towne of Crafft in 
 y e Covnty of Lyncolne in ould England neare Waneflitt 
 in y e fame Covnty w th all y e privilidges & appurtenances 
 therevnto belonging to him & his heires for ever and I 
 doe further giue vnto him my aforef d Sone Samuell all 
 my houfes lands marfh meadows fcituate & being in y e 
 townfhip of Wells in y e Covnty of York in Newengland 
 with all y e privilidges & appurtenances thervnto belong- 
 
2 3 2 
 
 Wheelwright*s Will. 
 
 ing [excepting before excepted] that land & marfly w ch by 
 mee was giuen as aboue fpecified vnto my Sone in law 
 Edward Ritliworth To my aforef d fone Sam 11 . Wheelwright 
 to his heires & affignes forever: And I do further giue 
 vnto my fone Samuel Wheelwright my clock & all my 
 library & bookes & all my Apparrell & all ye reft of my eftate 
 & goods not difpofed of in this will excepting the rents I 
 have owing to mee in ould-england halfe wherof I do giue 
 vnto my Executo r & ye other halfe to bee divided equally 
 between my three grand children William Thomas & Jacob 
 Bradbury In cafe my Executo r do recover it & if it fo 
 happen that one or more of thofe three children fhall die 
 before they come to age then hee or thofe y 1 doe furviue 
 fhall haue y e part of him or thofe that are deceafed 
 
 6. And further I do giue vnto my latter wyfes Childeren 
 all my plate to bee equally divided amongft them by two 
 indifferent plons chofen by themfelues to make that diviffion 
 Laftly I doe make ordeine & conftitute my fone Sam 1 . 1 . 
 Wheelewright of Wells aforef d to bee ye foie Executo r of this 
 my laft will & Teftament by whom care is to bee taken 
 for payment of my juft debts & difcharging of y e legafies 
 & funerall expences In wittnefs whervnto I have here vnto 
 affixed my hand & feale at y e day & date hereof: 
 
 John Wheelwright 
 
 \v th his feale to it. 
 
 Signed & fealed in y e 
 pTence of vs 
 
 Jn? ff l ood } Jn° fflood aged 27 years tef- 
 
 John Price > tifieth y t hee was pTent & did 
 
 Henry Ambross ) fee M r Jn° Wheelwright iigne 
 
 feale 
 
2 33 
 
 Wheelwright*s Will. 
 
 feale & deliver, declare & publifli this to bee his laft will 
 & Tesftam 1 : & y 1 hee was of a difpofeing minde & all on y e 
 day of y e date therof 
 
 Taken vpon Oath y® 26 th of Novem br 1679 In Bofton 
 before mee 
 
 Hum : Davie Affift: 
 
 Henry Ambros in y e pTence of y e Worlliipfull Nath?. 
 Saltonflall Efq r & Cap t John Gillman Affofiate w th y e re¬ 
 corder of y e Covnty of Norfolk gaue Oath y e 4th of Decm br 
 1679 that hee y e f d Ambros faw y e Reverend M r Jn° Wheel¬ 
 wright figne & feale & heard him publifh & declare this 
 will to bee his laft will & Teftam 1 : And that hee was then 
 of a difpofeing minde & y* y e fd Ambrofs knowes of no 
 other: So attefts 
 
 Tho: Bradbury rec dr 
 
 This will beeing pTented by y e Executo r therin named 
 was applied of & allowed of by y e worfhipfull Nath 1 . 1 . Salton- 
 ftall affift & Cap^ J n° Gillman affotiate: & comifsf vpon y e 
 evidence aboufd: y e 4 th of Decem br 1679 The Recorder 
 of y e Covnty being p r fent: So attefts 
 
 Tho: Bradbury rec dr 
 
 And y e Executo r is to p r fent a true inventory of y e eflate 
 vnto y e nex Covnty Court for Norfolke 
 
 Tho: Bradbury rec dr 
 
 Entred y e 5 th of Decem br 
 1679 
 
 3 ° 
 
THE PRINCE SOCIETY. 
 

 
OFFICERS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PRINCE SOCIETY. 
 
 Prefident. 
 
 JOHN WARD DEAN, A.M. Boston, Mass. 
 
 Vice-Prefidents. 
 
 JOHN WINGATE THORNTON, A.M. . . . Boston, Mass. 
 
 The Rev. EDMUND F. SLAFTER, A.M. . . Boston, Mass. 
 
 WILLIAM B. TRASK, Esq.Boston, Mass. 
 
 The Hon. CHARLES H. BELL, A.M. Exeter, N. H. 
 
 Correfponding Secretary. 
 
 CHARLES W. TUTTLE, A.M. Boston, Mass. 
 
 Recording Secretary. 
 
 DAVID GREENE HASKINS, Jr., A.M. . . . Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 7'reafurer. 
 
 ELBRIDGE H. GOSS, Esq 
 
 Boston, Mass. 
 
THE PRINCE SOCIETY. 
 
 1876. 
 
 The Hon. Charles Francis Adams, LL.D.. 
 
 Samuel Agnew, Efq. 
 
 Salomon Alofsen, Efq. 
 
 Thomas Coffin Amory, A.M. 
 
 William Sumner Appleton, A.M. 
 
 Walter T. Avery, Efq. 
 
 George L. Balcom, Efq. 
 
 Jofeph Ballard, Efq. 
 
 S. L. M. Barlow, Efq. 
 
 Nathaniel J. Bartlett, A.B. 
 
 The Hon. Charles H. Bell, A.M. . . . 
 
 John J. Bell, A.M. 
 
 Samuel L. Boardman, Efq. 
 
 The Hon. James Ware Bradbury, LL.D. . 
 
 John M. Bradbury, Efq. 
 
 J. Carfon Brevoort, LL.D. 
 
 Mrs. John Carter Brown. 
 
 John Marfhall Brown, A.M. 
 
 Jofeph O. Brown, Efq. 
 
 Hubbard W. Bryant, Efq. 
 
 Thomas O. H. P. Burnham, Efq. 
 
 George Bennet Butler, Efq. 
 
 George Bigelow Chafe, A.M. . . . . . 
 
 The Hon. Mellen Chamberlain, A.M. . 
 William Eaton Chandler, A.M. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 Amfterdam, Netherlands. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Claremont, N.H. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Exeter, N.H. 
 
 Exeter, N.H. 
 
 Augufta, Me. 
 
 Augufta, Me. 
 
 Ipfwich, Mafs. 
 
 Brooklyn, N.Y. 
 Providence, R.I. 
 
 Portland, Me. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 
 Portland, Me. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Chelfea, Mafs. 
 
 Concord, N.H. 
 
The Prince Society 
 
 Lucius E. Chittenden, A.M. 
 
 Ethan N. Coburn, Efq. 
 
 Jeremiah Colburn, A.M. 
 
 Jofeph J. Cooke, Efq. 
 
 Deloraine P. Corey, Efq. 
 
 Eraftus Corning, Efq. 
 
 Ellery Bicknell Crane, Efq. 
 
 Abram E. Cutter, Efq. 
 
 The Rev. Edwin A. Dalrymple, S.T.D. 
 
 William M. Darlington, Efq. 
 
 Henry B. Dawfon, Efq. 
 
 Charles Deane, LL.D. 
 
 John Ward Dean, A.M. 
 
 The Rev. Henry Martyn Dexter, D.D. 
 
 Samuel Adams Drake. 
 
 Harry H. Edes, Efq. 
 
 Jonathan Edwards, A.B., M.D. 
 
 Samuel Eliot, LL.D. 
 
 The Rev. George E. Ellis, D.D. .*. 
 
 Alfred Langdon Elwyn, M.D. 
 
 James Emott, Efq. 
 
 The Hon. William M. Evarts, LL.D. 
 
 Charles S. Fellows, Efq. 
 
 John S. H. Fogg, M.D. 
 
 William F. Fowle, Efq. 
 
 Samuel P. Fowler, Efq. 
 
 The Hon. Richard Frothingham, LL.D. 
 
 James E. Gale, Efq. 
 
 Marcus D. Gilman, Efq.. . . 
 
 The Hon. John E. Godfrey. 
 
 Abner C. Goodell, Jr., A.M. 
 
 Elbridge H. Gofs, Efq. 
 
 The Hon. Horace Gray, LL.D. 
 
 William W. Greenough, A.B. 
 
 Ifaac J. Greenwood, A.M.. 
 
 Charles H. Guild, Efq. 
 
 239 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Charleftown, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Providence, R.I. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Albany, N.Y. 
 Worcefter, Mafs. 
 Charleftown, Mafs. 
 Baltimore, Md. 
 Pittfburg, Pa. 
 Morrifania, N.Y. 
 Cambridge, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Melrofe, Mafs. 
 Charleftown, Mafs. 
 New Haven, Ct. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 New York, N.Y. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Chicago, Ill. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Danvers, Mafs. 
 Charleftown, Mafs. 
 Haverhill, Mafs. 
 Montpelier, Vt. 
 Bangor, Me. 
 
 Salem, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Somerville, Mafs. 
 
240 The Prince Society 
 
 The Hon. Robert S. Hale, LL.D. 
 
 C. Fifke Harris, A.M. 
 
 David Greene Hafkins, Jr., A.M. 
 
 The Hon. Francis B. Hayes, A.M. 
 
 Francis S. Hoffman, Efq. 
 
 James F. Hunnewell, Efq. .. 
 
 Theodore Irwin, Efq. 
 
 William Porter Jarvis, A.M. 
 
 John S. Jennefs, A.B. 
 
 * Edward F. de Lancey, Efq. 
 
 William B. Lapham, M.D. 
 
 John J. Latting, A.M. 
 
 Thomas J. Lee, Efq. 
 
 Jofeph Leonard, Efq. 
 
 John A. Lewis, Efq. 
 
 William T. R. Marvin, A.M. 
 
 William F. Matchett, Efq. 
 
 Frederic W. G. May, Efq.. . 
 
 The Rev. James H. Means, D.D. 
 
 George H. Moore, LL.D. 
 
 The Hon. Henry C. Murphy. 
 
 The Rev. James De Normandie, A.M. 
 
 The Hon. James W. North. 
 
 George T. Paine, Efq. 
 
 The Hon. John Gorham Palfrey, LL.D. 
 
 Daniel Parifh, Jr., Efq. 
 
 Francis Parkman, LL.B. 
 
 Auguftus T. Perkins, A.M. 
 
 The Rev. William Stevens Perry, D.D. 
 
 William C. Peters, A.M. 
 
 William Frederic Poole, A.M. 
 
 Capt. William Prince, U.S.A. 
 
 The Hon. John V. L. Pruyn, LL.D. 
 
 Samuel S. Purple, M.D. 
 
 The Rev. Alonzo H. Quint, D.D. 
 
 Edward S. Rand, A.M. 
 
 \ 
 
 Elizabethtown, N.Y. 
 Providence, R.I. 
 Cambridge, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 Charleftown, Mafs. 
 Ofwego, N.Y. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Augufta, Me. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Brooklyn, N.Y. 
 Portfmouth, N.H. 
 Augufta, Me. 
 Providence, R.I. 
 Cambridge, Mafs. 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Geneva, N.Y. 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 Chicago, Ill. 
 Springfield, Mafs. 
 Albany, N.Y. 
 
 New York, N.Y. 
 Dover, N.H. 
 
 Bofton, Mafs. 
 
The Prince Society. 241 
 
 Edward S. Rand, Jr., A.M.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Edward Afhton Rollins, A.M.Great Falls, N.H. 
 
 The Rev. Carlos Slafter, A.M.. . Dedham, Mafs. 
 
 The Rev. Edmund F. Slafter, A.M.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Charles C. Smith, Efq.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Samuel T. Snow, Efq.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 The Hon. Thomas Spooner.Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 George Stevens, Efq.Lowell, Mafs. 
 
 Edwin W. Stoughton, Efq.New York, N.Y. 
 
 The Hon. Benj. F. Thomas, LL.D.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 John Wingate Thornton, A.M.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 William B. Towne, A.M.Milford, N.H. 
 
 William B. Trafk, Efq.. . . . Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 The Hon. William H. Tuthill.Tipton, Iowa. 
 
 Charles W. Tuttle, A.M.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 George W. Wales, Efq.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Jofeph B. Walker, A.M.Concord, N.H. 
 
 Mifs Rachel Wetherill . ..Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Henry Wheatland, A.M., M.D.Salem, Mafs. 
 
 Mrs. William Wheelwright.London, Eng. 
 
 William H. Whitmore, A.M.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Henry Auftin Whitney, A.M.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 The Hon. Marfhall P. Wilder.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Henry Winfor, Efq.Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 The Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, LL.D.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Charles Levi Woodbury, Efq.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Afhbel Woodward, M.D.Franklin, Ct. 
 
 LIBRARIES. 
 
 American Antiquarian Society.Worcefter, Mafs. 
 
 Amherft College Library.Amherft, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton Athenaeum . -.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Bofton Library Society.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Britifh Mufeum.London, Eng. 
 
 Concord Public Library.Concord, Mafs. 
 
 31 
 
242 
 
 The Prince Society. 
 
 Eben Dale Reference Library.Peabody, Mafs. 
 
 Free Public Library.Worcefter, Mafs. 
 
 Grofvenor Library.Buffalo, N.Y. 
 
 Hiftorical Society of Pennfylvania.Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Library Company of Philadelphia.Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Long Ifland Hiftorical Society.Brooklyn, N.Y. 
 
 Maine Hiftorical Society.Brunfwick, Me. 
 
 Maryland Hiftorical Society.Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Maffachufetts Hiftorical Society.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Mercantile Library.New York, N.Y. 
 
 New England Hiftoric Genealogical Society . . Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Newburyport Public Library, Peabody Fund . . Newburyport, Mafs. 
 
 Portfmouth Athenaeum.Portfmouth, N.H. 
 
 Public Library of the City of Bofton.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 Redwood Library.Newport, R.I. 
 
 State Library of Maffachufetts.Bofton, Mafs. 
 
 State Library of New York.Albany, N.Y. 
 
 State Library of Rhode Ifland.Providence, R.I. 
 
 State Library of Vermont.Montpelier, Vt. 
 
 Williams College Library.Williamftown, Mafs. 
 
 Yale College Library.New Haven, Ct. 
 
PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. 
 
 New England’s Prospect. 
 
 A true, lively and experimentall defcription of that part of America , commonly called 
 New England : difcovering the State of that Countrie, both as it hands to our new- 
 come EngliJJi Planters; and to the old Natiue Inhabitants. By William Wood. 
 London, 1634. Preface by Charles Deane, LL.D. 
 
 The Hutchinson Papers. 
 
 A Collection of Original Papers relatiue to the Hiftory of the Colony of Maffachu- 
 fetts-Bay. Reprinted from the edition of 1769. Edited by William H. Whitmore, 
 A.M., and William S. Appleton, A.M. 2 vols. 
 
 John Dunton’s Letters from New England. 
 
 Letters written from New England A.D. 16S6. By John Dunton in which are 
 defcribed his voyages by Sea, his travels on land, and the characters of his friends 
 and acquaintances. Now firft publifhed from the Original Manufcript in the Bodleian 
 Library. Oxford. Edited by William H. Whitmore, A.M. 
 
 The Andros Tracts. 
 
 Being a Collection of Pamphlets and Official Papers iffued during the period be¬ 
 tween the overthrow of the Andros Government and the eftabliffiment of the fecond 
 Charter of Maffachufetts. Reprinted from the original editions and manufcripts. 
 With a Memoir of Sir Edmund Andros, by the editor, William H. Whitmore, A.M. 
 3 vols. 
 
 Sir William Alexander and American Colonization. 
 
 Including three Royal Charters, iffued in 1621, 1625, 1628; a TraCt entitled an 
 Encouragement to Colonies, by Sir William Alexander, 1624; a Patent, from the 
 Great Council for New England, of Long Ifland, and a part of the prefent State of 
 Maine; a Roll of the.,Knights Baronets of New Scotland; w r ith a Memoir of Sir 
 William Alexander, by the editor, the Rev. Edmund F. Slafter, A.M. 
 
 John Wheelwright. 
 
 Including his Fafl-day Sermon, 1637 : his Mercurius Americanus, 1645, an< ^ other 
 writings ; with a paper on the genuineness of the Indian deed of 1629, and a Memoir 
 by the editor, Charles H. Bell, A.M. 
 
 Note. — Communications for officers of the Prince Society may be directed to 
 18 Somerset Street, Boston. 
 
VOLUMES IN PREPARATION. 
 
 1. Captain John Mason, the founder of New Hamplhire, including his Tradt 
 on Newfoundland, 1620, and the feveral American Charters in which he was a Gran¬ 
 tee ; with a Memoir and hiltorical illuftrations by Charles W. Tuttle, A.M. 
 
 2. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, including his Tradt entitled A Brief Narration, 1658, 
 American Charters granted to him, and other papers; with hiltorical illuftrations and 
 a Memoir by the Rev. Edmund F. Slafter, A.M. 
 
 3. Champlain’s Voyages to New France, including the Voyage of 1603, and 
 all contained in the editions of 1613 and 1619. Tranllated into Englilh by Charles 
 P. Otis, Ph.D. Edited, with a Memoir and hiltorical illuftrations, by the Rev. 
 Edmund F. Slafter, A.M. 
 
 The tranflation is neaitfy completed.. 
 
 4. Sir Humphrey Gilbert, including his Difcourfe to prove a Paffage by the 
 North-Welt to Cathaia and the Eaft Indies; and his Letters Patent to difcover and 
 poffefs lands in North America, granted by Queen Elizabeth, June 11, 1578; with 
 hiltorical illuftrations and a Memoir by Charles W. Tuttle, A.M. 
 
 It is the intention of the Council to iffue at leaft one volume annually, but not 
 neceffarily in the order in which they are placed above. 
 
 Boston, 18 Somerset Street, 
 
 March 30, 1876. 
 
INDEX. 
 
A. 
 
 Adams, Nathaniel, vi., 113, 135. 
 Alford, 1, 6, 9, 92, 116. 
 
 Allen, Thomas, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 
 
 95, I 34, 137, 138, 139- 
 Ambros, Henry, 131, 232, 233. 
 Amefbury, 64, 68. 
 
 Anderby, 5. 
 
 Andros, Sir Edmund, 130. 
 Antinomians, &c., 9, 22, 24, 51, 52, 58, 
 181, 189. 
 
 Appleton, Samuel, 74. 
 
 Afpamabough, 33. 
 
 Afpinwall, William, 28, 193. 
 
 Atkinfon, Mary, 230. 
 
 B. 
 
 Backus, Ifaac, 27, 30, 50. 
 
 Barefoote, Walter, 70. 
 
 Barlow, George, 40. 
 
 Batchiler, Stephen, 55. 
 
 Bates, George, 36. 
 
 Belknap, Jeremy, 80, 83, 84, 89, no, 
 
 n 5, 139, 149- 
 
 Belleau, 63. 
 
 Biddeford, 102, 127. 
 
 Bilfby, 1, 3, 5, 9 2 , 93, 94- 
 Bithop, George, 70. 
 
 Boad, Henry, 45, 46. 
 
 Bodleian Library, 60. 
 
 Bonighton, Richard, 126, 127, 148. 
 Bofton, vii., 6, n, 15, 19, 24, 25, 33, 
 36, 47, 48, 83, 88, 118, 193, 194, 219. 
 Bourne, Edward E., 44, 45, 46. 
 Bouton, Nathaniel, no, 117, 118, 121, 
 123, 128, 135. 
 
 Bradbury, Jacob, 231, 232; Thomas, 
 231, 232, 233 ; William, 232. 
 Braintree, 12, T4. 
 
 Brinley, George, viii. 
 
 Britifh Mufeum, 60. 
 
 Brook, Benjamin, 5. 
 
 Bulgar, Richard, 36, 40, 42. 
 
 Bulkley, John, 130. 
 
 Burnet, Gilbert, 50; William, 135. 
 Burroughs, George, 75. 
 
 Bufwell, Ifaac, 69; William, 69. 
 
 C. 
 
 Callender, John, 30, 94. 
 Cam, Mr., 62. 
 
Index. 
 
 248 
 
 Cambridge Synod of 1637, 26, 27, 52. 
 Carr, Sir Robert, 67. 
 
 Cartwright, George, 67. 
 
 Charles I., 39, 40, 60. 
 
 Charleftown, 194. 
 
 Chafe, George W., 121. 
 
 Chauncey, Charles, 27. 
 
 Chefter, Jofeph L., 1. 
 
 Clark, Elifha, 135 ; John, 30. 
 Coddington, William, 19, 24, 28. 
 Coggefhall, John, 28, 193. 
 
 Colcord, Edward, 32, 33, 35, 109, in. 
 Cole, William, 32, 35, 40. 
 
 Collicott, Richard, 17, 18. 
 
 Combination, Exeter, 39, 42, 56. 
 Compton, John, 32, 34. 
 
 Congregational Library, viii. 
 
 Copeland, Lawrence, 32, 35. 
 
 Cotton, John, 7, 9, n, 18, 25, 26, 27, 
 
 59, 216. 
 
 Court, General, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 
 
 27, 37, 42, 47 , 48 , 49 , 5 °, 5 L 58 , 59 , 
 
 60, 72, 74, 76, 129, 192, 216. 
 
 Cram, John, 40. 
 
 Cranfield, Edward, 68, 139. 
 
 Crawley, Thomas, 40. 
 
 Crifpe, Richard, 63. 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver, 2, 60, 61, 62, 63. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dalton, Timothy, 54, 55, 61. 
 
 Dane, Nathan, 129. 
 
 Danforth, Samuel, 64; Thomas, 74. 
 Davie, Humphrey, 233. 
 
 Day, Mr., 62. 
 
 Dean, John Ward, viii. 
 
 Dearborn, Godfrey, 40. 
 
 Denifon, Daniel, 74. 
 
 Douglafs, William, 88. 
 
 Dover, 39, 136. 
 
 Drake, Samuel G., vi., viii., 6. 
 Dudley, Jofeph, 74; Samuel, 109. 
 Dyer, Mary, 197; William, 195, 197. 
 
 E. 
 
 Earft, 230. 
 
 Eaton, Mr., 98 ; John, 66. 
 
 Eliot, John, 62, 94. 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen, 16. 
 
 Elkins, Henry, 36, 40 ; Mary, 36. 
 Ellis, George E., 27, 151. 
 
 Endicott, John, 100, 102, 104, 117. 
 Exeter, Falls of the Squamfcot, 24, 31, 
 
 32, 35 ? 36 , 37 ? 38 , 39 ? 42 , 44 , 46, 47 , 
 66, 69, 85, 86 , 92, 93, 96, hi, 122, 
 133 ? 136. 
 
 F. 
 
 Farmer, John, vi., 34; Mrs. J., viii. 
 Faft-day Sermon, 8, 13, 15, 17, 150, 
 153-179? 214. 
 
 Fellows, Samuel, Sr., 69. 
 
 Felt, Jofeph B., 17, 19, 30, 52, 151. 
 Field, Darby, 32, 34, 40. 
 
 Fifher, Daniel, 74. 
 
 Fitch, Jabez, 87. 
 
 Flood, John, 232. 
 
 Folfom, George, 103, 126, 127. 
 
 Force, Peter, 121. 
 
 Foxcroft, George, 99. 
 
 French, Edward, 69; Jofeph, 69. 
 Fretwell, Ralph, 19. 
 
 Furber, William, 33, 35. 
 
Index . 
 
 249 
 
 G. 
 
 “ George,” The, 104. 
 
 Gibbons, Ambrofe, 122, 123, 148. 
 
 Gill, John, 69. 
 
 Gilman, John, 233. 
 
 Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, 44, 45, 124, 
 125, 128, 131 ; Thomas, 44, 45. 
 Graves, Thomas, 74. 
 
 Gridley, Thomas, 195. 
 
 Groom, Samuel, 14, 17, 25. 
 
 Groffe, Ifaac, 36. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hall, Ralph, 40. 
 
 Hammond, Jofeph, 79, 80. 
 
 Hampton, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59> 6 L 62, 6 4, 
 67, 69, 72, 131. 
 
 Haven, Samuel F., viii. 
 
 Haverhill, 85. 
 
 Hazard, Ebenezer, 89, 149. 
 
 Helme, Chriftopher, 40, 92. 
 
 Higginfon, John, 27. 
 
 High Commiflion, 16. 
 
 Hilton, Edward, 31, 91, 106, 107, 127, 
 128, 131, 148; Hilton’s Point, 127, 
 128, 148. 
 
 Hiftorical Magazine, 27, 83, 150. 
 Hough, Atherton, 29. 
 
 Howard, William, 56. 
 
 Hubbard, William, 23, 47, 49, 120. 
 Hume, David, 16. 
 
 Hutchinfon, Anne, 7, 9, 10, 24, 27, 52, 
 58, 151, 186, 187, 192, 195, 196, 197, 
 198, 219 ; Edward, 6, 192 ; Mary, 6 ; 
 Samuel, 32, 36, 44, 92, 193 ; Sufanna, 
 36, 45 ; Thomas, 23, 25, 61, 62, 63 ; 
 William, 7. 
 
 I 
 
 Ilfley, John, 69. 
 
 Indian deed of 1629, 4, 67, 79-141 
 pajjim j 149. 
 
 Ipfwich, 87. 
 
 J* 
 
 James, 32, 33. 
 
 Jennefs, John S., 126. 
 
 Jones, Sir William, 81. 
 
 Joffelyn, John, 124. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kingerbie, Thomas, 183. 
 
 Ivingfton, 85. 
 
 Knollys, Hanferd, 6. 
 
 ✓ 
 
 L. 
 
 Laconia, 122, 123, 124, 126, 148. 
 Lawfon, Chriftopher, 40, 92. 
 
 Leverett, John, 71. 
 
 Levett, Chriftopher, 116, 120. 
 
 Levitt, Thomas, 40, 79, 92, 144, 147. 
 Littlefield, Edmund, 40, 44; John, 46. 
 Londonderry, 85. 
 
 Lyde, Edward, 230. 
 
 M. 
 
 MacGregor, James, 85. 
 
 Maine, 43, 45, 79, 85, 102, 123, 124, 
 136. 
 
 32 
 
250 
 
 Index. 
 
 Marfhall, Chriftopher, 36; Thomas, 
 194. 
 
 Marfton, William, 56. 
 
 Mafon, Ann, 124; Hugh, 74; John, 
 3 8,67,80, 124, 125, 128, 131, 137; 
 Robert, 113, 114, 136, 139. 
 
 Mafonia, 123. 
 
 Maffachufetts, 30, #37, 39, 40, 42, 47, 
 48, 50, 51, 58, 61, 67, 77, 79, 89, 92, 
 94, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 108, IIO, 
 116, 117, II 9 > I22 , !36, 143 ) 1 45 ? 150. 
 
 Maffachufetts Hiftorical Society, viii., 
 150. 
 
 Mather, Cotton, 2, 59, 60, 80, 83, 89, 
 114. 
 
 Mathews, Francis, 40. 
 
 Maverick, Mary, 230 ; Samuel, 67. 
 
 Mercurius Americanus, 32, 52, 53, 151, 
 181-228. 
 
 Merrimac, 31, 33, 34, 67, 112, 117, 128, 
 144. 
 
 Minge, 230. 
 
 Mingy, Jeffrey, 56. 
 
 Miftonobite, 147. 
 
 Moody, Jofhua, 68. 
 
 Moore, George H., 25. 
 
 Morrill, Widow, 65. 
 
 Morris, Lenora, 36; Richard, 36, 40. 
 
 Morton, Thomas, 121. 
 
 Moulton, John, 56 ; William, 56. 
 
 Mount Wollafton, 12, 13, 24, 32, 51, 
 191. 
 
 Mumby, 1, 230. 
 
 N. 
 
 Nantafket, 97. 
 Naffau, Count, 192. 
 Naumkeag, 118. 
 
 Neal, Daniel, 16; Walter, 122, 128, 
 148. 
 
 Needham, Nicholas, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 
 44. 
 
 Newcomin, 230. 
 
 New England Hiftoric, Genealogical 
 Society, vi., vii., viii. 
 
 New Hampfliire, 30, 38, 42, 67, 79, 80, 
 82, 85, 92, 94, 96, 107, 114, 122, 123, 
 124, 131, 136, 137, 138, 139. 
 
 New Hampfliire Hiftorical Society, 88. 
 
 Newichwanick, 79, 124, 143, 144, 146. 
 
 New Somerfetfhire, 124. 
 
 Newtown (Cambridge), 32. 
 
 Nicholls, Richard, 67. 
 
 Norfolk, 69, 131, 229. 
 
 Notes and Queries, 60. 
 
 Nowell, Mr., 98. 
 
 O. 
 
 Ogunquit, 44, 45, 231. 
 
 Oldham, John, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 
 103, 104, 147. 
 
 Oyfter River, 33, 34, 112. 
 
 P. 
 
 Palfrey, John G., 14. 
 
 Palmer, Sir Geoffrey, 81. 
 
 Panoplift, 150. 
 
 Pafcataqua, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 42, 
 44, 67, 105, 106, 107, 113, 124, 128, 
 136, 143, 144, 145, 228. 
 
 Paffaconaway, 4, 79, 109, 119, 120, 121, 
 143, 146, 147. 
 
 Paffequo, 121. 
 
 Penacook, 79, 119, 120, 121, 143, 146. 
 
Index. 
 
 2 5 1 
 
 Pentucket, 79, 143, 144, 146. 
 
 Pequots, 191, 219. 
 
 Pettit, Thomas, 40. 
 
 Pike, Robert, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76. 
 Planter’s Plea, 105. 
 
 Plumer, William, vi. 
 
 Plymouth, 97, 106; Council of, 117, 
 125, 126, 131, 137. 
 
 Pormort, Philemon, 36, 40, 42. 
 Portfmouth, 68, 82, 87, 113, 135. 
 Potter, Chandler E., vi., 112, 149. 
 Price, John, 232. 
 
 Pulfifer, David, viii. 
 
 Pummadockyon, 33. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Oueen in Council, 81, 82, 83, 140. 
 Quincy, 12. 
 
 Quint, Alonzo H., 83. 
 
 R. 
 
 Randolph, Edward, 113. 
 
 Rawlinfon, Thomas, 70. 
 
 Read, Robert, 40. 
 
 Remonttrance, 20. 
 
 Reyner, John, 70. 
 
 Rhode Ifland, 30, 94. 
 
 Ring, Robert, 65. 
 
 Rifhworth, Edward, 40, 42, 44, 45, 92, 
 231, 232. 
 
 Roberts, Ephraim, 85. 
 
 Roby, Henry, 40. 
 
 Rockingham, 85, 112, 149. 
 
 Rowls, 79, 143, 146, 147 . 
 
 Roxbury, 32, 52. 
 
 Runawit, 79, hi, 143, 146, 147. 
 Ruobone, George, 40. 
 Rutherford, Samuel, 58, 59. 
 
 S. 
 
 • 
 
 Saco, 45, 126, 127, 148. 
 
 Saggahew, 121. 
 
 Saleby, 1. 
 
 Salem, 69, 104, 106, 117, 131. 
 
 Salifbury, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 
 229. 
 
 Saltonftall, Nathaniel, 233. 
 
 Sanborn, William, 56. 
 
 Savage, James, vi., 151 ; Thomas, 74. 
 
 Savage’s edition of Winthrop’s Hif- 
 tory, 9, 11, 23, 27, 36, 37, 38, 39, 49, 
 51, 60, 96, 105, 106, 108, 109, no, 
 116,T18, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129. 
 
 Scottow, Jofhua, 118. 
 
 Severance, John, 69. 
 
 Sharp, Samuel, 97, 104, 105, 106, 107, 
 147- 
 
 Shoals, I ties of, 126, 144. 
 
 Short Story, 18, 22, 24, 26. 52, 53, 58, 
 185, 207. 
 
 Sibley, John Langdon, vii. 
 
 Slafter, Edmund F., vii., 60. 
 
 Smith, Jeremiah, 131 ; Robert, 40; 
 Smith v. Wadleigh, 112. 
 
 Soward, Robert, 40. 
 
 Spencer, William, 17, 18. 
 
 Sprague, William B., 2. 
 
 Squamfcot, 31, 106, 107, 143, 145, 146. 
 
 Stevens, John, Sr., 69. 
 
 Storre, Auguttine, 32, 33, 34, 40, 79, 
 92, 144, 147 ; Marie, 3 ; Thomas, 3. 
 
 Story, Charles, 138. 
 
252 
 
 Index 
 
 Stoughton, Ifrael, 29. 
 
 Stratton, 44. 
 
 Strawberry-bank (Portfmoutli), 31. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tarrateens, 87, 88,'116, 143. 
 Thompfon, David, 91. 
 
 Thornton, J. Wingate, vii., 52. 
 
 Tuttle, Charles W., 123. 
 
 U. 
 
 Underhill, John, 34, 191. 
 
 Ufher, John, 83. 
 
 V. 
 
 Vane, Henry, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 22, 23, 
 24, 25, 60, 61, 63, 219, 227. 
 
 ValTall, Samuel, 98. 
 
 Vaughan, George, 83, 114, 122, 123, 
 148 ; William, 148. 
 
 Ven, Captain, 98. 
 
 Vines, Richard, 45, 102, 103, 126, 127, 
 148. 
 
 Vinton, John A., vi., 52. 
 
 W. 
 
 Wadargafcom, 147. 
 
 Walderne, Richard, 70, 136. 
 
 Waldron, Richard, 80, 81, 83, 134, 135, 
 136, 137, 138, 139, HO- 
 Walker, Samuel, 40. 
 
 Wall, James, 32, 35, 40. 
 
 Walton, George, 40. 
 
 Warded, Thomas, 36, 40; William, 36, 
 40. 
 
 Watohantowet, 33, 34, 113. 
 
 Wehanownowit, 32, 33, 37, 143, 146, 
 147, 148. 
 
 Weld, Thomas, 26, 52, 53, 59, 181, 209, 
 228. 
 
 Wells, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 
 69, 85, 231. 
 
 Wenbourne, William, 40. 
 
 Wentworth, William, 40, 42, 79, 92, 
 144, 147. 
 
 Wheelwright, John, birth, parentage, 
 education, 1,2; marriage, profeffion, 
 3 ; puritanic tendencies, 4; purchafe 
 of American lands, 4; is filenced 
 for non-conformity, 5 ; marries again 
 and emigrates to New England, 6; 
 Anne Hutchinfon and religious dif¬ 
 ferences in Maffachufetts, 7, 8; Tides 
 with Antinomians, 9 ; Henry Vane, 
 10; propofed as fecond teacher of 
 Bofton church, 11; affigned to Mount 
 
 • Wollaflon, 12 ; Faft-day Sermon, 13 ; 
 fummoned before General Court, 15; 
 examination, 16, 17 ; found guilty of 
 fedition and contempt, 18 ; propofal 
 to filence, 19; remonftrance of Bof¬ 
 ton church, 20-22 ; defeat of Vane, 
 2 3 ; paper warfare, 24; fynod of 
 1637, 26; fpecial election of depu¬ 
 ties, 27; friends expelled from Gen¬ 
 eral Court, fentence of banithment, 
 28 ; followers punifhed, 29 ; invited 
 to Rhode Ifland, 30 ; proceeds to 
 Falls of Squamfcot, 31 ; deeds from 
 Indian Sagamores, 32, 33 ; founds 
 Exeter, 34; divilion of lands, 35 ; 
 gathers church, 36 ; jealoufy of Maf- 
 
Index 
 
 253 
 
 fachufetts, 37 ; conflicting claims to 
 Winicowet, 38 ; Exeter Combination, 
 39, 40; laws, 41, 42; New Hamp- 
 fhire towns fubmit to Maffachufetts, 
 43 ; goes to Wells, 44, 45 ; estab- 
 lifhes church, 46; vifits Maffachu¬ 
 fetts, 48; letters to General Court, 
 49, 50; fentence of banifhment re¬ 
 mitted, 51 ; Short Story, 52; Mer- 
 curius Americanus, 53; invited to 
 Hampton, 54; removes and fettles 
 there, 55-57 ; Rutherford’s ftriCtures 
 upon, 58 ; adlion of General Court, 
 59; vindication, 59, 60; fails for 
 England, 61 ; pofition there, 62, 63 ; 
 returns and fettles in Salifbury, 64 ; 
 life there, 65-69; difficulty with Pike, 
 70-73 ; adjuftment, 74; death, 75 ; 
 character, 76-78 ; will of, 229-233. 
 
 Wheelwright, Catharine, 5 ; Col. John, 
 85, 86, 87 ; Mary, 35, 36; Robert, 1; 
 Samuel, 230, 231, 232; William, 5. 
 
 Whetcombe, Mr., 98. 
 
 White, John, 98, 99, 105, 106; Mary, 
 231. 
 
 Whiton, John M., vi. 
 
 Wiggin, Thomas, 127, 148. 
 
 Wight, Thomas, 40, 79, 144, 147. 
 Williamfon, William D., 80, 86, 126. 
 Wilfon, John, 9,11, 23,24, 25 ; Thomas, 
 40. 
 
 Winicowet (Hampton), 37, 38. 
 Winnington, Sir Francis, 81. 
 
 Winfley, Ephraim, 69. 
 
 Winthrop, John, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 
 23, 25, 31, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 76, 77, 
 121, 193, 199. 
 
 Wood, William, 120. 
 
 Worcefter, William, 71. 
 
 Y. 
 
 York, 46, 79, 80, 82, 85, 87, 231. 
 Young, Alexander, 99. 
 
 M 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
^ublicattous of ti)f prince ^ocitt!>. 
 
 JOHN WHEELWRIGHT. 
 
Council of tlje prince ^octetri 
 
 1876. 
 
 JOHN WARD DEAN. 
 
 JOHN WINGATE THORNTON. 
 EDMUND F. SLAFTER. 
 WILLIAM B. TRASK. 
 
 CHARLES H. BELL. 
 
 CHARLES W. TUTTLE. 
 
 DAVID GREENE HASKINS, Jr. 
 ELBRIDGE H. GOSS. 
 

 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .mjei i 'ue 
 
 
 
 
 au #****m 
 
 
 
 
 iPjMyfrtfftr 
 
 
 
 
 ffUPwmaaii 
 
 
 
 
 2,tfpww» 
 
 
 
 
 " .."fT^ 
 
 iWW' i* " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ns?- 
 
 
 
 #•■ • <?*-' j 
 
 ttcnra* • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 

 If In 
 
 
 
 
 1 .ixiv''i v - k>- M 
 
 ftjfli i 
 
 
 
 
 ii yfw?L AjSuJy 
 
 
 vy 
 
 V 
 
 ;- i; 
 
 
 IiC/i 
 
 
 fc. ft * i v_/ 1 1 
 
 i ” i w 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 i\ jVk ji\ u | 
 
 
 1 ^ rwi ▼ 
 
 OS/ifg W 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 \ i j . ', \ \ 
 
 ij jj 
 
 
 1 w w 
 
 W ;■ -<; ■ ■> . ; .1 
 
 g ^ yj V 
 
 v 
 
 i A A , ^ v.yy 
 
 ^ y y v 4 w *. 
 
MlTJM 
 
 y v v v vi* vivmjwmi 
 
 \mmW l 
 
 fey;M 
 
 IBli 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 l&M 
 
 HP 
 
 OW 
 
 UWV' 
 
 ,:' r ll '-Ii Jl- A - ii Ji v ^ 
 
 SfS 
 
 2®ig 
 
 yUW^WvW 
 
 yyy w . 
 
 , -I ,1 M 
 
 ;wVW 
 
 J \ J M 
 
 W _ 
 
 r ^ ^ 
 
 /W-V 
 
 j v yv vVV 
 
 , i vfV/1A/lwl'i 
 
 
 Mq 
 
 STOMJyn 
 
 
 w 
 
 ,i ;; ?, ,. ii A iVu 
 
 
 .vV:v.yy, 
 
 /.vjiV 
 
 My 
 
 Qyvlw© 
 
 "jd'C/M wi; w V V i 'J \jij\ 
 
 
 
 
 My 
 
 ■vJwVvuyywK;..y 
 
 w V v V * 
 
 - 0 V o- > 
 
 < M & M u W 
 
 V- V V 
 
 ' V V 
 
 W Y v vV' 
 
 v'yyv/yyy^vyvy 
 
 
 <mwwu 
 
 UyUk 
 
 mV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l-^Aril Lyill 4 wivwi! 
 
 i a £ 
 
 
 iTiAivi 
 
 i i l v iv vMwpoyPw 
 Mu i li iJ t® 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'li^K 
 
 
 mKmmnLll L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SHSE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -A SU^’KSfr A W/k 
 
Library 
 
 Theological Seminary-Speer 
 
 Princeton 
 
 1 1012 01012 6938