The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of Connecticut

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of Connecticut
Author: Bolles, John Rogers, Williams, Anna Bolles
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of Connecticut" ***

(This file was produced from images generously made

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. Superscripted
characters are preceded by ‘^’.

With the exception of single footnote (A) appearing in the Index, each
note has been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are
referenced.

Footnotes have been renumbered sequentially across the text for
uniqueness. Three footnotes (now numbered 71, 114, and A) are referenced
twice in the text.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE
ROGERENES

SOME HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED ANNALS BELONGING TO THE COLONIAL
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT

--------------

PART I.
A VINDICATION, BY JOHN R. BOLLES

PART II.
HISTORY OF THE ROGERENES
BY
ANNA B. WILLIAMS

APPENDIX OF ROGERENE WRITINGS

--------------

PRINTED FOR THE SUBSCRIBERS

=Stanhope Press=
F. H. GILSON COMPANY
BOSTON U.S.A.

--------------

_ALL RIGHTS RESERVED_

PUBLISHED JULY, 1904

CONTENTS.

--------------

PART I.

A VINDICATION.

CHAPTER I.

Errors of historians regarding the Rogerenes. James Rogers 19-36
and his family. Rogerenes first people in Connecticut to
denounce taxation without representation. Fines of the
Rogerenes. Their interruption of meetings not without
reasonable cause. John Roger’s contribution of a wig to
the New London ministry and his apology for the same.
Progressive character of the Rogerene movement. Heroism of
the Rogerenes under fines. Suit of Governor Saltonstall
against John Rogers. Its illegal character. Rev. Mr.
McEwen’s attacks on the Rogerenes. Sufferings of the
Rogerenes. Quotations from John Rogers and John Bolles
regarding persecutions. Scourging of Rogerenes, 1725, for
travelling to one of their own meetings on Sunday

CHAPTER II.

Rev. Mr. Saltonstall. His charge of blasphemy against John 37-50
Rogers. Statements of John Rogers, 2d, regarding this
charge and the punishments inflicted upon John Rogers on
account of it. John Rogers fined regularly once a month
without regard to his innocence or guilt. His nearly four
year’s imprisonment at Hartford immediately followed by
Mr. Saltonstall’s suit for defamation, by which a
subservient jury awarded Mr. Saltonstall the enormous sum
of £600 for damages. No admission of fault from the
ecclesiastical side. The case for the Rogerenes. John
Roger’s own account of his imprisonment upon charge of
“blasphemy.” Mr. McEwen avers that the Rogerenes
persecuted the Congregationalists and makes no mention of
the persecutions of the Rogerenes at the hands of the
Congregationalists, which called forth the efforts in
their own defense. Appropriate lines from Mother Goose.
Mr. Byles apparently as much displeased with the
Congregationalists as with the Rogerenes

CHAPTER III.

Truth and falsehood. Toleration not the word. The most 51-60
calumniated person in the world. “Blessed are ye when men
shall persecute and revile you.” John Rogers and his
followers would seem entitled to this blessing.
Inexcusable misstatements made by Mr. McEwen. Cause of the
divorce of John Rogers and Elizabeth Griswold as stated by
their son, John Rogers, 2d. A shining exception to the
erroneous statements of historians in general, on this
subject, shown in a quotation from Saulisbury Family
Histories. Singularly absurd statement by Rev. Mr.
Saltonstall quoted by Mr. McEwen. Similar statement by
Peter Pratt. Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to the same, giving
some account of his father’s sufferings on account of his
religion. Quotations from Trumbull indicating some of the
fines imposed upon the Rogerenes on account of their
religious persuasion. Mr. Saltonstall “a great man”
according to Bible text as well as by statements of
historians

CHAPTER IV.

Quotation from Peter Pratt’s calumnious work and quotations 61-72
from Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to same, giving account of
the forced separation of John Rogers from his first wife,
his marriage to Mary Ransford and his forced separation
from her. Verses by Peter Pratt. Verses by John Rogers,
2d, in reply to the same. Tribute of Peter Pratt to the
character of his half brother, John Rogers, 2d. Tribute to
same by Miss Caulkins

CHAPTER V.

“Nine and twenty knives.” Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, author of 73-80
a plot for the purpose of incarcerating John Rogers for
life. John Roger’s account of this plot and the barbarous
punishments inflicted upon him in consequence. The purpose
to send him to Hartford prison as a lunatic. His escape to
Long Island. Copy of “Hue and Cry” sent after him. Crime
of charging sane persons with insanity for malign purpose

CHAPTER VI.

Strictures on a Discourse delivered by Rev. Thomas P. Field 81-97
of “The First Church of Christ” of New London, 1870.
Quotations from the work of John Bolles, entitled “True
Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to no Flesh.” Account
of John Bolles by his biographer. The unceasing efforts of
the Rogerenes, from first to last, in the cause of
religious liberty must, of necessity, have aided that
cause in Connecticut. Deacon John Bolles, of Hartford,
grandson of John Bolles and brother of Rev. David Bolles.
Tribute to Deacon John Bolles by Dr. Turnbull, in 1856.
Judge David Bolles, son of Rev. David Bolles and author of
“The Baptist Petition.” The Bolleses Bonapartes in the
contest for religious liberty. Frederick D. Bolles, first
editor of the _Hartford Times_, established in 1817. The
subject of religious freedom its main topic. Quotations
concerning this paper, its editor Frederick D. Bolles, and
the associate editor, John M. Niles

CHAPTER VII.

Further comments on the Half-Century Sermon of Rev. Mr. 98-120
McEwen. Posterity of the Rogerenes. Mention of prominent
citizens of New London of Rogerene descent. Lawyers,
ministers, and physicians of this descent. Non-employment
of physicians by the Rogerenes. Anecdote concerning Joshua
Bolles of Bolles Hill. Mention of professors, wealthy
merchants, brokers, artists, editors, authors, and
teachers of Rogerene descent. Tribute to the memory of the
author’s sister, Delight Rogers Bolles. The “First Church
of Christ” removed to a new location called at the time
“Bolles Hill.” The Petrified Fern.—An obituary notice of
John Rogers Bolles, author of “A Vindication of the
Rogerenes”

--------------

PART II.

THE GREAT LEADERSHIP.

1637-1721.

CHAPTER I. (1637-1675.)

James Rogers the Connecticut planter. Soldier in the Pequot 121-137
war, from Saybrook. At Stratford, at Milford, at New
London. Is the principal business man of New London. His
children; their marriages. Conversion of his son John and
connection with Seventh-Day Baptist Church of Newport.
Consternation and opposition of Matthew Griswold and
family. Wife of John Rogers persuaded by her relatives to
return to Blackhall. John and his brothers are baptized by
immersion and join the Newport church. John Rogers founds
a church in New London, under that at Newport. Griswold
Petition for divorce. Arrest of John Rogers on accusation
by the Griswolds. His examination and acquittal at
Hartford

CHAPTER II. (1675-1683.)

James Rogers and his wife and daughter are baptized by 138-155
immersion and become members of the church of which John
Rogers is pastor. General Court grants the petition for
divorce. Authorities deal with the Rogerses for
non-attendance upon the services of the Congregational
Church and for “servile labor” on the first day of the
week. John Rogers baptizes his brother’s wife by
immersion, in the Cove near the Main Street. He is
imprisoned for the same. The Rogerene church shows
independence of that at Newport. Severe persecution of the
Rogerenes. Their first countermove. James Rogers and his
sons and daughter are imprisoned

CHAPTER III. (1684-1691.)

John Rogers, Jr., continued in custody of the Griswolds, on 156-169
account of the “hettridoxy” of his father. Rogerenes fined
and imprisoned for “servile labor” on the first day of the
week. To be punished “at discretion of the judges.” Second
Rogerene countermove. Rogerenes imprisoned and whipped.
John Rogers and James, Jr., fined for baptizing by
immersion. Rogerenes “declined to Quakerism.” Return of
the daughter of John Rogers to her father. Death of James
Rogers, Sr. His will. Error of Miss Caulkins regarding
“contention” among the children. Widow executes deed of
trust. Marriage of daughter of John Rogers at her father’s
house; John Rogers, Jr., a wedding guest. Rev. Gurdon
Saltonstall succeeds Rev. Simon Bradstreet. Samuel Rogers.
Religious status of Rogers family in 1690. John Rogers
sends a wig to the Congregational contribution for Mr.
Saltonstall. His apology for the same

CHAPTER IV. (1691-1694.)

Impaired condition of the widow of James Rogers, and 170-182
difficulties arising from this cause. John Rogers
imprisoned for entertaining Quakers at his house. John
Rogers continues to secure converts from the
Congregational Church and to attract the attention of
certain prominent citizens. The sole case of disagreement
on the part of any child of James Rogers regarding
division of the estate; Joseph finds that boundaries,
drawn by the men appointed by the court to make division
of the estate, give a house and lands which have been
considered his own to his brother Jonathan. Plot of Gurdon
Saltonstall to secure John Rogers in prison at a distance
from New London. Unexpected countermove by John Rogers.
His sister Bathsheba in the stocks. His imprisonment in
New London jail. He hangs a Proclamation out at his prison
window. Sent to Hartford jail, pending trial for
“blasphemy”

CHAPTER V. (1694-1698.)

John Rogers tried at Hartford on charge of blasphemy. Placed 183-194
on the gallows with a rope about his neck. Returned to
Hartford prison for refusal to give bonds for “good
behavior.” Burning of the New London meeting-house;
attempt to secure conviction of Bathsheba Smith and John
Rogers, Jr., for complicity in same. John Rogers, Jr., and
William Wright charged with assisting a prisoner to escape
from Hartford prison. William Wright imprisoned at
Hartford. Merciless and mysterious scourging of John
Rogers in Hartford prison. Remonstrance of dissenters at
New London. Death of Joseph Rogers. John Rogers, Jr.,
complained of before the General Court, for publishing and
circulating “a book counted heretical” “up and down the
colony.” John Rogers released from Hartford prison after
an imprisonment of nearly four years. He protests against
an unjust decision of the Superior Court, in regard to
William Wright, and is fined for Contempt. Death of
Jonathan Rogers. Rev. Gordon Saltonstall recovers £600
from John Rogers on a trivial pretext. Death of widow of
James Rogers

CHAPTER VI. (1698-1705.)

John Rogers returns to his Mamacock farm. Life at Mamacock. 195-211
Mary Ransford. Her attachment to John Rogers and
willingness to become his wife in a manner differing from
that of his first marriage, which marriage he considers
never to have been rightfully annulled. Opposition of his
son to the match. The marriage is consummated. John
Rogers, Jr., marries and brings his bride to Mamacock.
Displeasure of Mary. Disagreement between her stepson and
herself. Mary fined for the birth of her first child. Her
husband appeals and the fine is remitted. John Rogers,
Jr., and his stepmother before the court. Affidavit of
John Rogers, equally condemning and excusing either party.
Attempt of John Rogers to shield his second child from
brand of illegitimacy. His wife’s lack of courage to
second his endeavors. Her imprisonment and escape to Block
Island. Romantic scene between John Rogers and his first
wife. Visit of John Rogers to Samuel Bownas, while the
latter is imprisoned on Long Island. John Rogers gives up
the Seventh Day Sabbath, being convinced, by study of the
New Testament, that the Jewish Sabbath was done away with
by the new dispensation

CHAPTER VII. (1707-1711.)

John Bolles leaves the Congregational Church to join the 212-226
Rogerenes. His courageous stand. Mr. Saltonstall elected
governor. Peter Pratt a Rogerene. Dilemma of John Rogers
as executor. Captain James and son James to the rescue.
Joan Jackson. Her husband and John Rogers accused of
stealing her from Samuel Beebe at Plumb Island. Trial and
unjust verdict, by which a freed slave is given over with
her children to perpetual servitude. John Rogers condemns
this court sentence and is imprisoned for refusing to give
bonds for “good behavior” until his appearance for trial
before the Superior Court. His Petition ignored. Heavily
fined by Governor Saltonstall as judge of the Superior
Court, and again imprisoned for refusing to give bonds for
good behavior. Seizure of land of John, Jr., for a fine of
his father

CHAPTER VIII. (1711-1714.)

Authorities pretend to fear that John Rogers may escape from 227-241
New London prison. He is placed in irons. Conveyed to the
solitary and unfinished “inner prison.” At death’s door.
Rescued by the midnight outcry of his son. Death of his
sister Bathsheba. His release. Settlement of remainder of
the James Rogers estate. Effort to illegally arrest and
imprison John Rogers for “attempt to baptize” a person,
which purpose failing, Governor Saltonstall issues a
warrant for his arrest on charge of insanity. Imprisoned
on this charge and window of prison darkened by a plank.
Protest in behalf of John Rogers by an English lieutenant.
Mob in favor of prisoner tear the plank from the prison
window. Evening examination of John Rogers by Governor
Saltonstall in regard to his mental condition. Plot to
secure dark and solitary imprisonment of John Rogers in
Hartford jail. John Rogers informed of the plot. Escapes
by night to Long Island. “Hue and Cry” sent after him.
John Rogers, Jr., fined for his outcry in the night. John
Rogers is favored by the governor of New York. Returns to
New London and attempts to secure trial of the judges who
conducted the unfair trial by which Joan Jackson was
consigned to slavery. Is non-suited by influential
enemies. Death of Samuel Rogers. Death of Captain James
Rogers. Marriage of John Rogers to Sarah Cole

CHAPTER IX. (1716-1720.)

Rogerenes aroused by attempts at more strict enforcement of 242-254
the ecclesiastical laws. A countermove. Specious public
promise of Governor Saltonstall. Arrest of Sarah, wife of
John Bolles, for “breach of sabbath.” She rebukes the
judge for his unjust verdict. Her long imprisonment. Court
scene relating to the imprisonment of Sarah Bolles. John
Rogers declares the indictment in this trial to be a false
charge and has the sympathy of the jury. Sarah Bolles
loses her child in prison and lies at the point of death.
She is rescued from the prison, by a party of friends and
sympathizers, and carried home on a bed. Countermove by
John Waterhouse. His trial and imprisonment. Disappearance
of the doors of New London prison. John Waterhouse under
suspicion. Parentage and character of John Waterhouse.
John Bolles examined on charge of complicity in the
carrying off of the doors

CHAPTER X. (1721.)

John Waterhouse arrested and imprisoned for baptizing Joseph 255-267
Bolles. Countermove by John Bolles and wife. Seizure of
Rogerene property for rebuilding Congregational
meeting-house. Rogerenes hold noon meeting in
Congregational church. Governor Saltonstall absent. Noon
meeting repeated. Governor Saltonstall present. Rogerenes
attacked by a church party mob. Leaders imprisoned. John
Bolles maltreated. John Waterhouse whipped for baptizing
Joseph Bolles. Smallpox epidemic in Boston. John Rogers
goes to Boston to aid the sufferers, having, ever since
his conversion, made a practice of visiting the sick, and
especially those afflicted with this malady. His return
home. He is prostrated with the disease. Action of
Governor and Council at New Haven. Mamacock quarantined.
Death of John Rogers. Fidelity of his followers.
Succeeding leadership of the Rogerene Society

CHAPTER XI. (1721-1757.)

YEARS OF TRUCE.

Death of Mr. Saltonstall. The half-way covenant under his 268-283
ministry. Rogerenes scourged, in 1725, by Norwich
authorities, for travelling on Sunday. John Bolle’s
“Application to the General Court,” 1728. Governor
Saltonstall’s pew stove down, 1734. Rogerene baptisms.
Groton Rogerenes migrate to New Jersey. They found
Waretown. Ephrata Pilgrims visit the Rogerenes at New
London, 1744. Tightening of ecclesiastical reins. Slight
countermove, 1735. Conciliatory character of Mr. Adams.
Location of Rogerenes. Their general character. Their
intermarriages with other denominations. General
toleration towards the Rogerenes in this period. Death of
John Rogers, 2d. Rogerene burying ground. Sons of John
Rogers, 2d. Sons of John Bolles. Death of Mr. Adams, 1753.
John Bolle’s message to the General Court at Boston, 1754.
A Rogerene warning, 1754. Congregational Church await a
new minister

CHAPTER XII. (1764-1766.)

THE GRAND COUNTERMOVE.

Mather Byles installed in Congregational Church, 1757. His 284-297
character. His “sweetest enjoyment.” His efforts to
reclaim the Rogerenes by sermons on the sanctity of the
Sabbath and the sin of desecrating that “holy day.”
Rogerene leadership at this date. “Discourse” published by
Mr. Byles, 1759, entitled “The Christian Sabbath.” Reply
to same by Joseph Bolles. Virulent measures against the
Rogerenes revived by the church party, under the influence
of Mr. Byles. Death of Ebenezer Bolles, 1762. His
character. Faith in Divine healing. Preparations for a
great countermove. Rogerene procession from Quaker Hill
and entrance into Congregational meeting-house, June,
1764, with “gospel testimony.” Dire punishment by lynch
law. Continuance of “testimony,” and continuance of brutal
punishments. Imprisonment of Rogerenes. New tactics by the
Rogerenes. Mr. Byles is driven nearly frantic. Victory for
the Rogerenes is near at hand. Mr. Byles will not venture
out to church. He soon deserts New London and the
Congregational ministry. Quiet restored. Death of John
Bolles, January 7, 1767

CHAPTER XIII.

QUAKERTOWN.

Rogerenes in the new century (1800). Home of John 298-320
Waterhouse. Quakertown in that locality. Early Rogerenes
of Groton. John Culver. Samuel Whipple. His iron works.
Marriages with New London Rogerenes. Liberal
characteristics of New London Rogerenes. Exclusiveness of
the Quakertown community. John Waterhouse living in 1773.
His son Timothy succeeds him in leadership. Timothy’s
experience in the great countermove, as described by
himself. Zacharia Watrous. The Battle Axe. Petition of
Alexander Rogers regarding the military tax, 1810. Elder
Timothy Watrous, Jr., succeeded by his youngest brother,
Zephania. Quakertown meeting-house built. Elder Zephania
Watrous. Quakertown Rogerenes as abolitionists. William
Bolles of New London. His paper, The Ultimatum. His
encouragement and entertainment of speakers in The
Abolition cause. The temperance cause in Quakertown.
Division in Quakertown regarding freedom of speech.
Principles advocated in Quakertown. Quakertown people and
their neighbors. Anecdote of divine healing in Quakertown.
Intermarriages. Quakertown industries. Quakertown
inventors. Quakertown authors. Peace Meetings inaugurated.
Zerah C. Whipple. Peace Meetings of present day. Brief
summary of Rogerene doctrines and customs

CHAPTER XIV.

DRAGON’S TEETH.

Peter Pratt. His scandalous book. The evident falsehoods in 321-341
that work. Proof of other intentionally incorrect
statements in the same. Later historians, including Miss
Caulkins, misled by these statements. Errors regarding the
Rogerenes in Backu’s “History of the Baptists.” Unreliable
traditions in Barber’s “Historical Collections of New
Jersey.” Errors by Mr. Field in his Bi-Centennial
Discourse. Errors by Mr. Blake in his “History of the
First Church of Christ in New London.” Marriages of New
London Rogerenes same as those of persons of other sects.
Marriages of Groton Rogerenes by a Quaker ceremony,
solemnized in Rogerene public meeting, after due
publication of marriage intentions. These marriages legal.
View of marriage among the Rogerenes; a sacred agreement
not to be annulled save for the one cause stated in the
New Testament. Errors by author of the Bolles Genealogy.
Seven different versions of the current anecdote regarding
lack of marriage ceremony by the Rogerenes. Serious
dragon’s tooth inadvertantly manufactured by Dr. Blake

APPENDIX.

Extracts from “Epistles” by John Rogers, Sr. 345

Extracts from “Two Ministrations” by John Rogers, Sr. 349

Extracts from “Concerning the Sabbath” by John Rogers, Sr. 352

“Heretics” by John Rogers, Sr. 361

Extracts from “Conversations with John Rogers” by Samuel 362
Bownas

Extracts from “Reply to J. Backus” by John Rogers, 2d 363

Extracts from “Answer to Cotton Mather” by John Rogers, 2d 365

Extracts from “Reply to Peter Pratt” by John Rogers, 2d 368

Extracts from “Answer to Mr. Byles” by John and Joseph 369
Bolles

Extracts from “Looking Glass for Presbyterians of New 373
London” by John Rogers, 3d

Extracts from “Debate between Mr. Byles and Congregational 381
Church,” published by the Church

Extracts from “The Battle Axe” by Timothy Watrous, Sr., and 383
Timothy, Jr.

Petition by Alexander Rogers (John, 2d) 386

Titles of Books by Rogerene Authors 388

NOTE.—The only change from the original Rogerene writings in this
Appendix or in the body of this work has been in omitting the old style
capital letters at beginning of substantives.

INTRODUCTION.

While spending the summer at New London, in 1894, we were requested to
aid Mr. John R. Bolles, in the capacity of reader and amanuensis, he
being compelled, by reason of impaired sight, to depend upon such
assistance. The work upon which he was engaged was a vindication of the
Rogerenes. Having, from what we had read and heard concerning this
colonial sect, regarded them as fanatics whose idiosyncrasies bordered
upon lunacy, we could neither understand Mr. Bolle’s interest in the
subject, nor why he was so willing to call public attention to the fact
that certain Rogerene leaders were among his ancestors. Nevertheless we
could not refuse to render the small service required of us.

The chief sources upon which Mr. Bolles depended for information were
Miss Caulkin’s “History of New London” and a number of Rogerene works,
nearly two hundred years old, dating from their first publication, which
were in possession of family friends. It was necessary for us to read
these works to Mr. Bolles. Much to our surprise, we found them to be of
an exceedingly intelligent, logical character, far removed from the
fantastic and visionary. Although written during periods of severest
persecution, they were perfectly calm and dispassionate in tone, even in
the few pages where reference was made to Rogerene sufferings “for
conscience’s sake”; these being passed over, for the most part, with the
remark that “it would take a large volume to contain them all.” In these
volumes was almost nothing of Rogerene history; but here stood out, in
bold relief, such features of Rogerene faith and principles as dearly
separated this sect from other people of their day and were calculated
to excite bitter enmity and opposition on the part of the ruling and
popular party. It was now easy to understand why these dissenters were
portrayed to their own and succeeding times as brainless enthusiasts.
Those in advance of their age are as cranks and fanatics in the esteem
of their contemporaries, and rumor is ever busy blackening the character
of unpopular people.

The Rogerene leaders appeared, in their writings, as consistent
Christians, contending, by word and example, for the religion set forth
in the New Testament, a religion depending not upon the observance of
forms or of days, but upon love to God and the neighbor. They maintained
that the civil government had no right to dictate in matters of
religion; that the Christian church had but one lawgiver and judge, the
Lord Himself. The divine commands regarding religion as set forth in the
New Testament they would strictly obey, but they would, “for
conscience’s sake,” obey no command of men in this regard. The purely
civil laws they held themselves bound to observe, according to Christ’s
command. Had Sunday laws been instituted for avowedly sanitary and moral
purposes, and for the convenience and protection of church-going people,
none would have conformed to such laws more conscientiously than the
Rogerenes, such obedience being in the line of their preaching and
practice regarding the civil laws. But because they were commanded to
keep this day “sacred,” as a religious duty and necessity, and such
observance was accounted a vital part of a religious life, they would
not join in what seemed to them to be more of the nature of heathen
idolatry than of the religion instituted by Jesus Christ.

At a period when extreme regard for the first day “Sabbath” was one of
the most readily accepted signs of a religious life, and no laws were
more rigidly enforced than those which guarded that “sacred” day from
desecration, the Rogerenes conscientiously ignored its sacredness. At a
period when the materia medica was founded largely upon erroneous ideas
and practices, when surgery was bungling and blundering and he who
called a physician was, frequently, more liable to die of the so-called
remedy than of the disease, the Rogerenes elected to trust their health
and their lives to Nature and to Nature’s God, in the manner prescribed
in the New Testament, and they appear to have profited by their
choice.[1] At a period when no men were more in favor of war than those
who preached—in parts—the gospel of Him who bade His followers to
forgive their enemies, to love them and pray for them and to return good
for evil, the Rogerenes stood for uniform peace and good will on the
part of Christians, according to the spirit and the letter of the
Master’s teachings. At a period when the law called upon all to support
a state church, the Rogerenes refused to pay towards the support of a
church of whose teachings they largely disapproved, or to either give or
take anything for a ministry which Christ established as a free gift
from those gifted by Him. Driven by the intolerance of their times to
protect their obnoxious sect from extinction at the hands of powerful
enemies, as best they could, the Rogerenes employed, at critical
periods, a peaceable yet effective mode of defense, in the line of
Gospel testimony, which enraged their opponents while it kept them
fairly at bay. This was the climax of their offences.

-----

Footnote 1:

Yet they seem to have regarded experience and common-sense remedies as
a part of natural means, since they made use of ordinary home remedies
and good nursing.

-----

Here was enough, and more than enough, to account for the
misrepresentations given of this sect.

The death of Mr. John R. Bolles occurred soon after his attempt to place
the Rogerenes in a more correct light was completed. The logic employed
by this author was of the best, his style was forcible, his quotations
were important; but his lack of new light upon the subject in the shape
of additional facts in Rogerene history was much to be regretted. It did
not seem best that his work should be published until some attempt had
been made to secure further authentic information. Our leisure time for
a number of succeeding summers was devoted to research in this obscure
direction. Thorough examination was made of the town records and records
of the colonial courts of Connecticut, also of contemporary writings
having any bearing upon the subject. When the mass of material thus
secured was chronologically arranged, it was discovered that portions
fragmentary and obscure in themselves were supplemented by other
fragments, and this to such a degree that even the records of the
inimical courts, where evident pains had been taken to omit particulars
liable to tell for the side of the Rogerenes, aided in disclosing the
true facts. As a dissected picture is made intelligible by the correct
arrangement of its parts, this at first seemingly chaotic collection of
fragmentary items, by a mere arrangement according to dates, resolved
itself into a presentation of the Rogerene leaders as actors in a series
of highly romantic scenes, in which were dearly displayed the true
character and principles of these dissenters and the calumnious nature
of the descriptions which had been given of them. Here were heroes and
situations deserving not only the attention of historians, but that of
poets and artists. Here were facts that outromanced fiction. Here was
something new for lovers of old-time tales and images, and much bearing
upon New England history at large, as well as remarkable examples of
Christian heroism. Here were questions for the Christian scholar and
statesman.

As they came to us out of the old records and writings, we present the
following facts concerning the Rogerenes to readers of this generation
as before a court of appeal. The enemies of this sect have said their
worst of them, largely by aid of false statements. Now, for the first
time, is presented, by many valid evidences, the case for the Rogerenes.

* * * * *

Precedence has been given in this volume, to the work of the senior
author. That and the historical portion will be found largely
supplementary, each of the other.

The task which Mr. Bolles had undertaken was chiefly in correction of
certain erroneous statements which had been made in newspaper articles
and printed sermons, issued in his locality, most of which statements
had been derived from ecclesiastical authors, who had found it expedient
to adopt various current representations and traditions which had
appeared on the church side of the controversy rather than to enter upon
any research in this matter. As will be seen, some portion of Mr.
Bolle’s vindication had been published in a local paper. This is
comprised in the first chapter.

In compiling the History, careful search was made for every item of
reliable information concerning John Rogers and the Rogerenes, and every
fact that was discovered is set plainly before the reader, in
chronological order.

It would be quite possible for a reader to view the entire material that
has been examined for the production of this History. The County Court
records are at the county clerk’s office in Norwich. The records of the
Superior Court are in the secretary’s office, in the State House, at
Hartford. The records of the General Court have been published and are
to be found in many public libraries. The Rogerene books still extant
are very rare, so much so that they could only be seen as a whole by
going here and there among the owners. The titles of these works will be
found at the end of the Appendix, together with statement of where
single copies may be found.

Some of the material used for the History is from “Letters of Mr. Samuel
Hubbard.” The portions of these letters quoted in this work may be seen
in Benedict’s “History of the Baptists.” The “Journal of William
Edmundson” and “The Life and Travels of Samuel Bownas” have furnished
some important particulars. These two works are rare outside of Quaker
libraries. Miss Caulkin’s “History of New London,” from which quotations
will be found, is in many public libraries in New England and elsewhere.

The scandalous work of Peter Pratt, “The Prey Taken from the Strong,” is
in the Prince collection in the Boston Public Library and in the
Massachusetts Historical Society’s Library in Boston. A copy of “The
Reply of John Rogers 2nd” is in the Connecticut Historical Library at
Hartford. The last half of the original manuscript of the Hempstead
Diary is in the Historical Rooms at New London, while the first half is
at the “Old Hempstead House,” at New London. This Diary has recently
been published in book form by the New London Historical Society.

“An Account of the Debate between Rev. Mather Byles and The Brethren” of
the Congregational Church of New London may be seen in the New London
Public Library.

An interesting side-light was furnished by Mr. Julius F. Sachse, in his
work entitled “The Ephrata Cloister,” Vol. II, Chapter IV.

As for spurious accounts of the Rogerenes to be found here and there, in
ecclesiastical and town histories, the falsity of which is established
in the course of this volume, mention of their authorship will be found
in the places of refutation. Other minor references will be credited as
they occur.

* * * * *

Our thanks are due to the Connecticut state librarian and his
assistants, to clerks in the secretary’s office, and to Mr. Bates of the
Connecticut Historical Library at Hartford, for the polite and obliging
manner in which they placed before us books and manuscripts having a
bearing upon this subject. Like courtesy was shown us in the county
clerk’s office, in Norwich, the town clerk’s office in New London, and
by the secretary of the New London Historical Society. In the Yale
College Library, we were shown a copy of “An Answer to a Pamphlet,” by
John Rogers, 2d, which is the only copy we have discovered.

By researches in new lines, we have discovered some mistakes regarding
the Rogerenes made by that gifted and honored historian, Miss Fanny M.
Caulkins. Miss Caulkins was the first historian to attempt careful and
intelligent search in this obscure direction. In her “History of New
London” she has given a large amount of accurate information concerning
the Rogerenes, much of which is quoted with advantage, in Part First, by
Mr. Bolles. It is to be hoped that we, in our turn, may be supplemented
by some historian favored with sources of information unknown to
ourselves, who will shed a still clearer light upon this subject, by
presentation of facts outside of our own field of observation.

A. B. W.

PART I.
A VINDICATION

JOHN R. BOLLES.

THE PATHWAY OF THE YEARS.

An onward path we have to tread,
We cannot see the way.
Faith, love and hope their radiance shed,
Here and thus far the years have led;
But of the steps that lie ahead
We know not one to-day.

Then pause, look back and courage take;
How bright the road appears!
Each foot that trod there helped to break
Rough places down, and for our sake
Were lived the lives that shining make
The pathway of the years.

Backward it reaches, firm and sure
The steps that trod the way,
In simple homes, with purpose pure,
Faith to inspire, hope to allure;
Men wrought for ends that still endure
And make us strong to-day.

The days to come are all unread,
Unguessed by hopes or fears;
But press with courage high ahead,
For still there grows beneath our tread,
The highway grand, by pilgrims made,
The pathway of the years.

We come of heroes! Be each soul
Loyal like theirs, and free,
A shrine of honor, a white scroll;
That, as life’s pages fresh unroll,
They who then read, may find the goal
We sought was heavenly.

MARY L. BOLLES BRANCH.

A VINDICATION.

CHAPTER I.

This chapter contains the substance of several letters, originally
published in the _New London Day_ (1860), in reply to an article which
had previously appeared in that paper, misrepresenting the teachings and
conduct of the Rogerenes.

A communication in the _New London Day_ of December 9, 1886, speaks of
John Rogers and his followers, the Rogerenes, whose distinctive
existence spread over a period of more than a century in the history of
New London. The writer of the article referred to followed the example
of his predecessors who have spoken derisively of this “sect,” either in
not knowing whereof he affirmed or in purposely misrepresenting these
dissenters. We prefer to ascribe the former, rather than the latter,
reason.

Trumbull, in his “History of Connecticut,” charged John Rogers with
crimes from which the grand jury fully exonerated him, as by its printed
records may be seen. These false and scandalous charges have been
reiterated, again and again, and have found a place in Barber’s
“Historical Collections of Connecticut” against the clearest testimony.
His withdrawal from the standing religious order of the day aroused such
hatred that many false accusations were made against him, which, like
dragon’s teeth sown over the land, have been springing up again and
again.

The article which called forth these remarks doubtlessly derived its
errors from those sources. I will point out a few of its inaccuracies.

The author says, “The Rogerenes are a sect founded by John Rogers in
1720.” John Rogers died in 1721, after a most active dissemination of
his principles for a period of about fifty years, gathering many
adherents during that time.

Again, he says, “They entered the churches half naked.” He must have
confounded the Boston Quakers with the Rogerenes, as nothing of the kind
was ever known of the latter. It is true that Trumbull makes an
assertion of this sort; but even Dr. Trumbull cannot be regarded by
close students as an example of accuracy—certainly not as regards
Rogerene history.

The inhabitants of New London plantation were not sinners above other
men. At the time James Rogers, senior, his wife, sons and daughters were
thrust into prison in New London, John Bunyan was held in jail in
England and said he would stay there till the moss grew over his
eyebrows, before he would deny his convictions or cease to promulgate
them. In the light of to-day, neither of these committed any offense
whatever. Hundreds of the best of men suffered in like manner in
England, and for a long period of time; and some were given over to
death. The reverend father of Archbishop Leighton was, for conscience’s
sake, held imprisoned for more than twelve years, and not released until
his faculties, both of body and mind, were seriously impaired. Rev. John
Cotton, one of Boston’s earliest preachers, came out of prison to this
country. Religious thought was drenched, so to speak, with false
notions, and many, even of those who had escaped from persecution in the
Old World, became persecutors in the New.

Great praise is due to such men as Roger Williams, who fled from Salem
to the wilderness to escape banishment for his principles, hibernating
among Indians “without bed or board,” as he expressed it, and whose
ultimate settlement in Rhode Island made that State the field of
religious liberty. Equal praise is due to John Rogers and his
associates, at a later day, for boldly enunciating the same principles,
and bravely suffering in their defense, ploughing the rough soil of
Connecticut and sowing the good seed there.

Nor was the treatment of the Rogerenes comparable for cruelty with that
of the Quakers at Boston, a few years prior to the Rogers movement. We
hear nothing of the cutting off of ears, boring the tongue with a
red-hot iron, banishment, selling into slavery or punishment by death,
which disgraced the civilization of the Massachusetts colony and which
was Puritanism with a vengeance, almost leading us to sympathize with
their persecutors in England. New London plantation was disgraced by no
such heathenism as this.

St. Paul boasted that he was a citizen of no mean city. We shall find
that the Rogerenes are of no mean descent, sneered at and held in
derision though they have been, by men of superficial thought.

James Rogers, senior, a prosperous and esteemed business man of Milford,
Conn., had dealings in New London as early as 1656, and soon after
became a resident. Says Miss Caulkins:—

He soon acquired property and influence and was much employed, both in
civil and ecclesiastical affairs. He was six times representative to
the General Court. Mr. Winthrop had encouraged his settlement in the
plantation and had accommodated him with a portion of his own house
lot next the mill, on which Rogers built a dwelling house of stone. He
was a baker on a large scale, often furnishing biscuit for seamen and
for colonial troops, and between 1660 and 1670 had a greater interest
in the trade of the port than any other person in the place. His
landed possessions were very extensive, consisting of several hundred
acres on the Great Neck, the fine tract of land at Mohegan, called the
Pamechaug Farm, several house lots in town and 2,400 acres east of the
river, which he held in partnership with Col. Pyncheon of
Springfield.[2] Perhaps no one of the early settlers of New London
numbers at the present day so great a throng of descendants. His five
sons are the progenitors of as many distinct lines. His daughters were
women of great energy of character. John Rogers, the third son of
James, having become conspicuous as the founder of a sect, which
though small in point of number has been of considerable local
notoriety, requires a more extended notice. No man in New London
County was at one time more noted than he; no one suffered so heavily
from the arm of the law, the tongue of rumor and the pens of
contemporary writers.

John and James Rogers, Jr., in the course of trade, visited Newport,
R.I., and there first embraced Sabbatarian principles and were
baptized in 1674; Jonathan in 1675; James Rogers, senior, with his
wife and daughter Bathsheba, in 1676, and these were received as
members of the Seventh Day Church at Newport.[3]

-----

Footnote 2:

Although New London, at that time, included all that is now known as
Groton, Ledyard, Stonington, Montville, Waterford and East Lyme, we
find, by the proportion which James Rogers paid for the support of the
minister, that his property amounted to about one-tenth of that of the
entire plantation. The minister’s salary was £80 a year. Says Miss
Caulkins: “Rate lists for the minister’s tax are extant for the years
1664, 1666 and 1667. In this list the amount of each man’s taxable
property is given and the rate levied upon it is carried out. The
assessment of James Rogers is nearly double that of any other
inhabitant.” His rate was £7 19s. 10d., nearly three times that of
Governor Winthrop, which was £2 14s.

Footnote 3:

The first Baptist church of Newport was formed before May, 1639, by
some excommunicated members of the church at Boston and others. From
its organization, it rejected the supervision of civil magistrates.
Dr. John Clarke was its founder and first pastor. In 1671, several
member of Mr. Clarke’s church organized themselves into the
Sabbatarian or Seventh Day Baptist Church of Newport (then Aquedneck)
which James Rogers and his family joined, as above stated.

-----

As James Rogers, senior, against whom even the tongue of slander has
been silent, was among the first to feel the ecclesiastical lash, a few
words more concerning him from the pen of Miss Caulkins are here given:—

The elder James Rogers was an upright, circumspect man. His death
occurred in February, 1688. The will is on file in the probate office
in New London in the handwriting of his son John, from the preamble of
which we quote.

“What I have of this world I leave among you, desiring you not to fall
out about it; but let your love one to another appear more than to the
estate I leave with you, which is but of this world; and for your
comfort I signify to you that I have a perfect assurance of an
interest in Jesus Christ and an eternal happy estate in the world to
come, and do know and see that my name is written in the book of life,
and therefore mourn not for me as they that are without hope.”

Hollister, in his “History of Connecticut,” speaks of James Rogers in
high terms; although, in an evidently faithful following of historical
errors, he gives the common estimate of John Rogers and his followers.
Says Miss Caulkins:—

In 1676 the fines and imprisonments of James Rogers and his sons, for
profanation of the Sabbath,[4] commenced. For this and for neglect of
the established worship, they and some of their followers were usually
arraigned at every session of the court, for a long course of years.
The fine was at first five shillings, then ten shillings, then fifteen
shillings. At the June court,1677, the following persons were
arraigned and each fined £5:--James Rogers, senior, for high-handed,
presumptuous profanation of the Sabbath, by attending to his work;
Elizabeth Rogers, his wife, and James and Jonathan, for the same. John
Rogers, on examination, said he had been hard at work making shoes on
the first day of the week, and he would have done the same had the
shop stood under the window of Mr. Wetherell’s house; yea, under the
window of the meeting house. Bathsheba Smith, for fixing a scandalous
paper on the meeting house. Mary, wife of James Rogers, junior, for
absence from public worship.

Again, in September, 1677, the court ordered that John Rogers should
be called to account once a month and fined £5 each time; others of
the family were amerced to the same amount, for blasphemy against the
Sabbath, calling it an idol, and for stigmatizing the reverend
ministers as hirelings. After this, sitting in the stocks and whipping
were added.

-----

Footnote 4:

It will be understood that while “profaning” the first day Sabbath,
they were strictly keeping the scriptural seventh day Sabbath.

-----

This correspondent says, “The Rogerenes despised the authority of law.”
But only that which infringed upon their natural rights and honest
convictions of duty. To all other laws they were obedient. Says Miss
Caulkins:—

John Rogers maintained obedience to the civil government, except in
matters of conscience and religion. A town or county rate the
Rogerenes always considered themselves bound to pay; but the
minister’s rate they abhorred, denouncing as unscriptural all
interference of the civil power in the worship of God.

The Rogerenes were the first in this State to denounce the doctrine of
taxation without representation, the injustice of which is now
universally acknowledged. All their offences may be traced to a
determination to withstand and oppose ecclesiastical tyranny. Pioneers
in every great enterprise are sufferers, and pioneers in thought are no
exception to this rule. Other men have labored, and we have entered into
their labors. That principle for which these heroes and heroines so
valiantly and faithfully contended, in the grim face of suffering and
hate, the total divorcement of Church and State, is now established. Has
it not become the boast and glory of the nation, the torch of liberty
held aloft in the face of the world? And does it not show the march of
civilization that the right of all to equal religious freedom, then so
obnoxious, is now fully confessed and sweet to the ear as chime of
silver bells?

The venerable James Rogers, senior, with his wife, three sons and two
daughters, were, as we have seen, arraigned and fined £5 each at one
session of the court, within two years from the time of their alliance
with the Seventh Day Baptist Church of Newport. Other arraignments
followed, and in the case of John Rogers, the court ordered that he
should be called to account every month and fined £5 each time. Draco’s
laws were said to have been written in blood; Caligula set his on poles
so high they could not be read; but it was reserved for a New England
court, in the perilous times of which we are speaking, to pass sentence
before the offense was committed or trial had!

Nor have we but just entered into the vestibule of that temple of
ignorance, tyranny, and crime, which, even in the New London plantation,
reared its front and trailed its long shadow down a century. But on the
ashes of oppression thrives the tree of liberty. Religious freedom was
then emerging from the incrustation of ages, as the bird picks its way
through the shell to light and beauty. Whippings and sittings in the
stocks afterwards took place, yet we hear of but a single attempt on the
part of the Rogerenes to interrupt the public worship of their enemies,
until nearly eight years of persecution had elapsed, and it should be
remembered that such interruption was not uncommon in those days;
Quakers doing the same in Boston, under like treatment.

We quote from the records of the court, 1685:—

John Rogers, James Rogers, Jr., Samuel Beebe, Jr., and Joanna Way are
complained of for profaning God’s holy day with servile work, and are
grown to that height of impiety as to come at several times into the
town to rebaptise several persons; and, when God’s people were met
together on the Lord’s Day to worship God, several of them came and
made great disturbance, behaving themselves in such a frantic manner
as if possessed with a diabolical spirit, so affrighting and amazing
that several women swooned and fainted away.[5] John Rogers to be
whipped fifteen lashes and for unlawfully re-baptising, to pay £5. The
others to be whipped.

-----

Footnote 5:

For particular account of this and a previous countermove, see Part
II, Chap. 2.

-----

The Quakers at Boston had been charged with having a similar spirit,
and, almost simultaneously with this complaint, witches, so-called, were
hung at Salem. Mr. Burroughs, a preacher, being a small man, was charged
with holding out a long-barrelled gun straight with one hand. He
defended himself by saying that an Indian did the same thing. “Ah!
that’s the black man!” said the judge, meaning the devil helped him do
the deed. Burroughs was hung! It was said of Jesus of Nazareth, “He hath
a devil.”

There was no printing-press at that time in New London, and had there
been it would have served the will of the dominant power, not that of
the persecuted few. Bathsheba Smith had been previously fined £5 for
attaching a paper to the side of the meeting-house, setting forth their
grievances. If John Rogers had undertaken to harangue an audience in the
street, it might have been regarded as a still greater offense. It may
be said to be an unlawful act to present their case and assert their
rights in this manner; but an unlawful act is sometimes justified by
circumstances. It would be an unlawful act to go to your neighbor’s
house in the night, knock loudly at his door, disturb the inmates and
call out to them while quietly sleeping in their beds; but, if the house
were on fire, it would be a right and merciful act. Great exigencies
justify extraordinary conduct. What would be wrong under certain
conditions would be right under others.

It may be said that this course would not be tolerated at the present
day. Neither, we add, would the acts that led to it. The prophet was at
one time commanded to speak unto the people, whether they would hear or
whether they would forbear. With our imperfect knowledge of the
circumstances of the case, it may be impossible, at this date, to judge
rightly of its merits. Elizabeth Rogers was charged with stigmatizing
the reverend clergy as hirelings, and with calling the Sabbath an idol.
She was fined five pounds. There was not much freedom of speech in those
days. As to calling the Sabbath an idol, that was no more than saying it
was unduly reverenced. It was so among the Jews, at the time our Saviour
endeavored to disabuse them of the fallacy and to teach them that “the
Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” The brazen
serpent ordained of God for the healing of the people, when it became an
object of idolatrous worship, was ordered to be taken to pieces.

Miss Caulkins says:—

One of the most notorious instances of contempt exhibited by Rogers
against the religious worship of his fellow-townsmen was the sending
of a wig to a contribution made in aid of the ministry.

This was in derision of the full-bottomed wigs then worn by the
Congregational clergy.

We sympathize with him in his contempt of the ornament, if such it may
be called, of which the portraits of the Rev. Mr. Saltonstall present a
rich specimen. An ancient bishop refused to administer the rite of
baptism to one thus garnitured, saying, “Take that thing away; I will
not bless the head of a dead man.” John Rogers made an apologetic
confession of this offense, which may be seen upon the town records
to-day, viz.:—

Whereas I, John Rogers of New London, did rashly and unadvisedly send
a periwigg to the contribution of New London, which did reflect
dishonor upon that which my neighbors, ye inhabitants of New London,
account the ways and ordinances of God and ministry of the Word, to
the greate offense of them, I doe herebye declare that I am sorry for
the sayde action and doe desire all those whom I have offended to
accept this my publique acknowledgment as full satisfaction.

JOHN ROGERS.

A young man, sensible that his life had not been what it ought to have
been, and resolving upon amendment, sought his father and made frank
acknowledgment of his faults. Having done so, he said, “Now, father,
don’t you think you ought to confess a little to me?” We think some
confessions were also due from the other side.

The nest in which is hatched the bird of Jove is built of rough sticks
and set in craggy places. Again, it is stirred up that the young eaglet
may spread its wings and seek the sun. The victor’s laurels are not
cheaply gained; conflict and struggle are the price. Sparks flash from
collision. Lightnings cleanse the air. The geode is broken to free the
gem that lies within. Diamonds are cut and polished ere they shed forth
their splendor. Great good is usually ushered in by great labor and
sacrifice. It is so with liberty. Let us tread about its altars with
reverence, with unshod feet; altars from which have ascended flames so
bright as to illumine earth, and offerings so sweet as to propitiate
heaven. The unjust and tyrannical laws by which the early battlers for
religious freedom in this section were assailed have long since been
erased from the statutes of the State. The tide of public sentiment had
swollen to such height, in which all denominations except the standing
order were a unit, that they were wiped out, and their existence was
made impossible in the future. That the Rogerene movement largely
contributed to bring about this result will be shown. Of the hardships,
loss of liberty, loss of property, etc., which the Rogerenes endured for
conscience’s sake, Miss Caulkins speaks thus:—

Attempts were made to weary them out and break them up by a series of
fines, imposed upon presentments of the grand jury. These fines were
many times repeated, and the estates of the offenders melted under the
seizures of the constable as snow melts before the sun. The course was
a cruel one and by no means popular. At length, the magistrates could
scarcely find an officer willing to perform the irksome task of
distraining.

The demands of collectors, the brief of the constable, were ever
molesting their habitations. It was now a cow, then a few sheep, the
oxen at the plow, the standing corn, the stack of hay, the threshed
wheat, and, anon, piece after piece of land, all taken from them to
uphold a system which they denounced.

Further details of their sufferings will be omitted in this place; but
the famous suit of Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall against John Rogers demands
and shall receive dose attention.

It was while Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall was minister of the church of New
London, and through his influence, that John Rogers was expatriated, so
to speak, and mercilessly confined three years and eight months in the
jail at Hartford, “as guilty of blasphemy.” Shortly after his release,
Rev. Mr. Saltonstall brought a suit against John Rogers for defaming his
character. The following is the record of the court:—

At a session of the County Court, held at New London, September 20th,
1698, members of the court, Capt. Daniel Wetherell, esq., Justices
William Ely and Nathaniel Lynde, Mr. Gurdon Saltonstall, minister of
the gospel, plf. pr. contra John Rogers, Sr., def’t, in an action of
the case for defamation.

Whereas you, the said John Rogers, did some time in the month of June
last, raise a lying, false and scandalous report against him, the said
Mr. Gurdon Saltonstall, and did publish the same in the hearing of
diverse persons, that is to say, did, in their hearing, openly declare
that the said Saltonstall, having promised to dispute with you
publicly on the holy Scriptures, did, contrary to his said engagement,
shift or wave the said dispute which he promised you, which said false
report he, the said Saltonstall, complaineth of as to his great
scandal and to his damage unto such value as shall to the said court
be made to appear. In this action the jury finds for the plaintiff
£600 and costs of court £1 10s.

The £600 damages, equal perhaps to $10,000 at the present day, was not
more remarkable than the suit itself, which had no legal foundation.
Lorenzo Dow tells “how to lie, cheat and kill according to law.” But
here is a deed—ought we not to call it a robbery?—done under cover,
without the authority, of law. For the words alleged to have been
spoken, action of slander was not legal. That this may be made clear to
the general reader, we quote the language of the law from Selwyn’s
“Digest”:—

An action on the case lies against any person for falsely and
maliciously speaking and publishing of another, words which directly
charge him with any crime for which the offender is punishable by law.
In order to sustain this action it is essentially necessary that the
words should contain an express imputation of some crime liable to
punishment, some capital offense or other infamous crime or
misdemeanor. An imputation of the mere defect or want of moral
virtues, moral duties, or obligations is not sufficient.

To call a man a liar is not actionable; but the offensive words charged
upon Rogers do not necessarily impute as much as this. There might have
been a mistake or a misunderstanding on both sides, or Mr. Saltonstall
may, for good reason, have changed his purpose. No crime was charged
upon him, which we have seen is necessary to support the action. “Where
the words are not actionable in themselves and the only ground of action
is the special damage, such damage must be proved as alleged.” In this
case no special damage, is alleged and of course none proved. The causes
of the suit were too trifling for further discussion. Falsehood need not
rest upon either. Duplicity was no part of Roger’s character, and, since
we have spoken a word for him, we will let the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall
speak for himself, as quoted by Mr. McEwen in his “Bi-Centennial
Discourse”:—

“There never was,” said Gov. Saltonstall in a letter to Sir Henry
Ashurst, “for this twenty years that I have resided in this
government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on account
of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this
people.”

We may suppose that Mr. Saltonstall thought he had done a brilliant act,
to recover from John Rogers a sum equal to about six year’s salary. But
there are scales that never grow rusty and dials that do not tire. Time,
the great adjuster of all things, will have its avenges.

While the least peccadilloes of the Rogerenes have been searched out as
with candles and published from pulpit and from press, no one of their
enemies has ever found it convenient to name this high-handed act of
oppression, as shown in the suit referred to. Perhaps they have viewed
it in the light that the Scotchman did his text, when he said,
“Brethren, this is a very difficult text; let us look it square in the
face and pass on.” They may not even have looked it in the face.

Last, if not least, of the unauthenticated anecdotes narrated by Mr.
McEwen of the Rogerenes, in his half-century sermon, which we would not
care to unearth, but which has recently been republished in _The
Outlook_, is here given:—

One of this sect, who was employed to pave the gutters of the streets,
prepared himself with piles of small stones, by the wayside, that when
Mr. Adams was passing to church, he might dash them into the slough,
to soil the minister’s black dress. But, getting no attention from the
object of his rudeness, who simply turned to avoid the splash, the
nonplussed persecutor cried out, “Woe unto thee, Theophilus,
Theophilus, when all men speak well of thee!”

When we remember that Mr. Adam’s name was not Theophilus, and that, if
it was on Sunday that the preacher was going to church, the gutters
would not have been in process of paving, a shadow of doubt falls upon
this story.

But Mr. McEwen throws heavier stones at the Rogerenes, which we are
compelled to notice, and shall see what virtue there is in them.

Why, in speaking of the Rogerenes, in his half-century sermon, does he
say: “To pay taxes of any sort grieved their souls”? when they were so
exact to render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the
things that are God’s? Miss Caulkins fully exonerates them from this
charge. We repeat her words:—

He (John Rogers) maintained also obedience to the civil government,
except in matters of conscience and religion. A town or county rate
the Rogerenes always considered themselves bound to pay; but the
minister’s rate they abhorred.

Why should they not? Would not the Congregational church at that time
have abhorred such a tax imposed upon them to support the Baptist
ministry? Until we are willing to concede to others the rights that we
claim for ourselves, we are not the followers of Him who speaketh from
heaven. But the most glaring wrong done to these dissenters by the
standing order, outvying perhaps Gov. Saltonstall’s groundless suit for
damages, is found in the course taken by the magistrates, unrebuked,
who, however small was the fine or however large the value of the
property distrained, returned nothing to the victims of their injustice.

Says John Rogers, Jr.:—

For a fine of ten shillings, the officer first took ten sheep, and
then complained that they were not sufficient to answer the fine and
charges, whereupon, he came a second time and took a milch cow out of
the pasture, and so we heard no more about it, by which I suppose the
cow and the ten sheep satisfied the fine and charges.

As showing the absurd and unjust treatment that John Rogers endured at
the hands of the civil and ecclesiastical power, we quote from Miss
Caulkins. Clearly he was right with regard to the jurisdiction of the
court:—

In 1711, he was fined and imprisoned for misdemeanor in court,
contempt of its authority and vituperation of the judges. He himself
states that his offense consisted in charging the court with injustice
for trying a case of life and death without a jury. This was in the
case of one John Jackson, for whom Rogers took up the battle axe.
Instead of retracting his words, he defends them and reiterates the
charge. Refusing to give bonds for his good behavior until the next
term of court, he was imprisoned in New London jail. This was in the
winter season and he thus describes his condition:—

“My son was wont in cold nights to come to the grates of the window to
see how I did, and contrived privately to help me to some fire, etc.
But he, coming in a very cold night, called to me, and perceiving that
I was not in my right senses, was in a fright, and ran along the
street, crying, ‘The authority hath killed my father’; upon which the
town was raised, and forthwith the prison doors were opened and fire
brought in, and hot stones wrapt in cloth and laid at my feet and
about me, and the minister Adams sent me a bottle of spirits, and his
wife a cordial, whose kindness I must acknowledge.

“But when those of you in authority saw that I recovered, you had up
my son and fined him for making a riot in the night, and took, for the
fine and charge, three of the best cows I had.”

John Bolles, born in 1677, a disciple of John Rogers, in his book
entitled “True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to No Flesh,” makes
this statement, on page 98:—

To my knowledge, was taken from a man, only for the costs of a
justice’s court and court charge of whipping him for breach of the
Sabbath (so-called) a mare worth a hundred pounds, and nothing
returned, and this is known by us yet living, to have been the general
practice in Connecticut.

His biographer adds, “Mr. Bolles was doubtless that man.”

We quote further from John Bolles:—

And as he (John Rogers) saith hitherto, so may we say now, fathers
taken from their wives and children, without any regard to distance of
place, or length of time. Sometimes fathers and mothers both taken and
kept in prison, leaving their fatherless and motherless children to go
mourning about the streets.

When a poor man hath had but one milch cow for his family’s comfort,
it hath been taken away; or when he hath had only a small beast to
kill for his family, it hath been taken from him, to answer a fine for
going to a meeting of our own society, or to defray the charges of a
cruel whipping for going to such a meeting, or things of this nature.
Yea, £12 or £14 worth of estate hath been taken to defray the charges
of one such whipping, without making any return as the law directs.
And this latter clause in the law is seldom attended.

Yea, fourscore and odd sheep have been taken from a man, being all his
flock; a team taken from the plough, with all its furniture, and led
away. But I am not now about giving a particular account; for it would
contain a book of a large volume to relate all that hath been taken
from us, and as unreasonable and boundless as these.

Mr. McEwen says derisively:—

Their goods were distrained; their cattle were sold at the post, and
some of their people were imprisoned. But, emulating the example of
the apostles, they took joyfully the spoiling of their goods; yea,
they gloried in bonds and imprisonment.

It was not the apostles, but the Hebrews, to whom the apostle wrote, who
took joyfully the spoiling of their goods. A small matter, it may seem,
to correct; but accuracy of Scripture quotation may be a Rogerene trait,
and the writer will be proud if it be said, “Surely, thou art also one
of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”

The subject on which we have entered opens and broadens and deepens
before us, blending with all history and all truth. It is not
exceptional, it is not isolated. It may not be blotted from memory, as
it cannot be blotted from existence, painfully interwoven as it is with
the mottled fabric of time. The world’s greatest benefactors have often
been its greatest sufferers. Socrates was made to drink the fatal
hemlock, for not believing in the gods acknowledged by the state.
Seneca, the moralist, was put to death by his ungrateful pupil, Nero.
The first followers of Christ were persecuted, tortured and slain by the
heathen world. Attaining to civil power, Christians treated in like
manner their fellow Christians. Ecclesiastical history, wherever there
has been an alliance of church and state, is blackened with crimes and
cruelties too foul to be named. Recall the nameless horrors of the
Inquisition, perpetrated under such rule. Think of Smithfield and the
bloody queen.

Is it to be wondered at that the Rogerenes, meeting persecution at every
turn, should have been aroused to a sublimity of courage, perhaps of
defiance, against the tide of intolerance which had swept over the ages
and was now wildly dashing its unspent waves across their path? Not
until more than a century later did the potent word of Christian
enlightenment go forth, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and
here shall thy proud waves be stayed.”

Passing a period of fifty years, darkened with wrongs and cruelties, the
following notice of whipping is here given. It is necessary to present
facts, that we may form a true judgment of the character and mission of
this sect, which had at least the honor, like that of the early
Christians, of being “everywhere spoken against.”

From the “Life of John Bolles” we take the following:—

I have before me a copy of the record of proceedings, in July, 1725,
before Joseph Backus, Esq., a magistrate of Norwich, Conn., against
Andrew Davis, John Bolles, and his son Joseph Bolles (a young man of
twenty-four years), John Rogers (the younger), Sarah Culver and
others, charged with Sabbath breaking, by which it appears that for
going on Sunday, from Groton and New London, to attend Baptist worship
in Lebanon, they were arrested on Sunday, imprisoned till the next day
and then heavily fined, the sentence being that if fine and costs were
not paid they should be flogged on the bare back for non-payment of
fine, and then lie in jail till payment of costs. As none of them
would pay, they were all flogged, the women as well as the men, John
Bolles receiving fifteen stripes and each of the others ten.

According to the statement of one of the sufferers, Mary Mann of
Lebanon wished to be immersed, and applied to John Rogers (the
younger) and his society for baptism. Notice was publicly posted some
weeks beforehand that on Monday, July 26th, 1725, she would be
baptised and that a religious meeting would be held in Lebanon on
Sunday, July 25th, “the day,” says Rogers, “on which we usually meet,
as well as the rest of our neighbors.”[6] When the Sunday came, a
company of Baptists, men and women, from Groton and New London, set
out for Lebanon, by the county road that led through Norwich. The
passage through Norwich was so timed as not to interfere with the
hours of public worship. After they had passed through the village,
they were pursued and stopped, brought back to Norwich, imprisoned
until Monday, and then tried, convicted and sentenced for Sabbath
breaking. It must be added that a woman who was thus stripped and
flogged was pregnant at the time, and that the magistrate who ordered
the whipping stood by and witnessed the execution of the sentence.
This outrage was much talked of throughout New England, and led to the
publication of divers proclamations and pamphlets.

Deputy Governor Jenks, of Rhode Island, the following January, having
obtained a copy of the proceedings against Davis and the others,
ordered it to be publicly posted in Providence, to show the people of
Rhode Island “what may be expected from a Presbyterian government,”
and appended to it an indignant official proclamation.

-----

Footnote 6:

About 1705, the Rogerene Society came to the conclusion that the
Jewish Sabbath and ordinances were, according to the teachings of the
New Testament, done away with by the new dispensation, and they began
to hold their meetings on Sunday as the more convenient day. See Part
II, Chap. VI.

-----

GOVERNOR JENK’S PROCLAMATION.

I order this to be set up in open view, in some public place, in the
town of Providence, that the inhabitants may see and be sensible of
what may be expected from a Presbyterian government, in case they
should once get the rule over us. Their ministers are creeping in
amongst us with adulatious pretense, and declare their great
abhorrence to their forefather’s sanguinary proceedings with the
Quakers, Baptists and others. I am unwilling to apply Prov. xxvi, 25,
to any of them; but we have a specimen of what has lately been acted
in a Presbyterian government, which I think may suppose it sits a
queen and shall see no sorrow. I may fairly say of some of the
Presbyterian rulers and Papists, as Jacob once said of his two sons,
Gen. xlix, 5 and 6 verses, “They are brethren, instruments of cruelty
are in their habitations! O, my soul, come not thou into their secret!
Unto their assembly, mine honor, be thou not united!” Amos v, 7, “They
who turn judgment into wormwood and leave off righteousness in the
earth.” Chapter vi, 12, “For they have turned judgment into gall, and
the fruit of righteousness into hemlock!” And I think in whomsoever
the spirit of persecution restest there cannot be much of the spirit
of God. And I must observe that, notwithstanding the Presbyterian
pretended zeal to a strict observance of a first day Sabbath was such
that those poor people might not be suffered to travel from Groton to
Lebanon on that day, on a religious occasion, as hath been minded, but
must be apprehended as gross malefactors and unmercifully punished;
yet, when a Presbyterian minister, which hath a great fame for
abilities, hath been to preach in the town of Providence, why truly
then the Presbyterians have come flocking in, upon the first day of
the week, to hear him, from Rehoboth, and the furthest parts of
Attleborough, and from Killingly, which is much further than John
Rogers and his friends were travelling; and this may pass for a Godly
zeal; but the other must be punished for a sinful action. Oh! the
partiality of such nominal Christians!

JOSEPH JENKS, _Dep. Gov._

CHAPTER II.

In the contemplation of noble deeds, we become more noble, and by the
just anathematizing of error our love of truth is made stronger. As the
bee derives honey from nauseous substances, so we would extract good
even from wrongdoing. It is with no spirit of animosity towards any one
that we pursue this subject.

No word of palliation for the acts of the Rogerenes, no admission of
wrong done to them by their opponents, is heard from the ecclesiastical
side. Perhaps even the severity of the statements made against them may
be an evidence in their favor.

The Rev. Mr. Saltonstall began his ministry in New London in 1688, at
the age of twenty-two. This was about twelve years after the
prosecutions against the Rogers family, for non-conformity, had
commenced. In 1691, he was ordained, and continued to preach until 1708,
when he was chosen governor of the State and abandoned the ministry
altogether. Bred in the narrow school of ecclesiasticism, and of a proud
and dominant spirit, the day-star of religious liberty seems not even to
have dawned upon his mind.

He was virulent in his enmity to John Rogers from the beginning. The
Furies have been said to relent; his rancor showed no abatement.

In 1694, he presented charges of blasphemy against John Rogers, without
the knowledge of the latter, and while he was confined in New London
jail. We copy the following extract, from a statement made by John
Rogers, Jr., writing in defence of his father, which shows how closely
he was watched by his adversaries, that they might find grounds of
accusation against him.

Peter Pratt, of whom we shall say more hereafter, an author mainly
quoted by historians on the subject we are discussing, in a pamphlet
traducing the character of John Rogers, and written after his death, had
said of his treatment in Hartford: “His whippings there were for most
audacious contempt of authority; his sitting on the gallows was for
blasphemous words.”

To which John Rogers, Jr., thus replies:—

First, he asserts that his whippings there—viz., at Hartford—“were for
most audacious contempt of Authority”; but doth not inform the reader
what the contempt was; making himself the judge, as well as the
witness, whereas it was only his business to have proved what the
contempt was, and to have left the judgment to the reader.

And forasmuch as his assertion is altogether unintelligible, so may it
reasonably be expected that my answer must be by supposition, and is
as follows:—

“I suppose he intends that barbarous cruelty which was acted on John
Rogers, while he was a prisoner at Hartford, in the time of his long
imprisonment above mentioned, which was so contrary to the laws of God
and kingdom of England, that I never could find that they made a
record of that matter, according to Christ’s words, John iii, 20, ‘For
every one that doeth evil hateth the light,’ etc.

“But John Rogers has given a large relation about it, as may be seen
in his book entitled, ‘A Midnight Cry.’ From pages 12-15, where he
asserts that he was taken out of Prison, he knew not for what, and
tied to the Carriage of a great gun, where he had seventy-six stripes
on his naked body, with a whip much larger than the lines of a drum,
with knots at the end as big as a walnut, and in that maimed condition
was returned to prison again; and his bed, which he had hired at a
dear rate, taken from him, and not so much as straw allowed him to lie
on, it being on the eighteenth day of the eighth month, called
October, and very cold weather.”

And although myself, with a multitude of spectators, who were present
at Hartford and saw this cruel act, can testify to the truth of the
account which he gives of it, yet I cannot inform the reader on what
account it was that he suffered it, or what he was charged with; for,
as I said before, I never could find a record of that matter.

But if it was for contempt of Authority, as Peter Pratt asserts, then
I think those that inflicted such a punishment were more guilty of
contempt against God than John Rogers was of contempt against the
Authority; for God in his holy law has strictly commanded Judges not
to exceed forty stripes on any account, as may be seen, Deut. xxv, 3,
“So that for Judges to exceed forty stripes is high contempt against
God.”

In the next place, he adds that “his sitting on the gallows was for
blasphemous words.”

Reply:—

Here again he ought to have informed the reader what the words were,
which doubtless would have been more satisfaction to the reader than
for Peter Pratt to make himself both witness and judge, and so leave
nothing for the reader to do but to remain as ignorant as before they
saw his book.

And he might as well have said of the Martyr Stephen that his
suffering was for blasphemous words, as what he says of John Rogers,
for it was but the judgment of John Roger’s persecutors that the words
were blasphemous, and so it was the judgment of the Martyr Stephen’s
persecutors that he was guilty of speaking blasphemous words, as may
be seen, Acts vi, 13, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous
words,” etc. Whereupon they put him to death.

In the next place, I shall give the reader an account of what these
words were for which John Rogers was charged with blasphemy; the
account of which here follows:—

He being at a house in New London where there were many persons
present, was giving a description of the state of an unregenerate
person, and also of the state of a sanctified person; wherein he
alleged that the body of an unregenerate person was a body of sin, and
that Satan had his habitation there. And, on the contrary, that the
body of a sanctified person was Christ’s body, and that Christ dwelt
in such a body.

Whereupon, one of the company asked him whether he intended the humane
body, to which he replied that he did intend the humane body.
Whereupon, the person replied again, “Will you say that your humane
body is Christ’s body?” to which he replied, clapping his hand on his
breast, “Yes, I do affirm that this humane body is Christ’s body; for
Christ has purchased it with His precious blood; and I am not my own,
for I am bought with a price.”

Whereupon, two of the persons present gave their testimony as follows:
“We being present, saw John Rogers clap his hand on his breast and
say, ‘This is Christ’s humane body.’” But they omitted the other words
which John Rogers joined with it.

And because I was very desirous to have given those testimonies out of
the Secretary’s Office, I took a journey to Hartford on purpose but
the Secretary could not find them; yet, forasmuch as myself was
present, both when the words were spoken, and also at the trial at
Hartford, I am very confident that I have given them verbatim. And
whether or no this was blasphemy, I desire not to be the judge, but am
willing to leave the judgment to every unprejudiced reader.

The words of John Rogers were perfectly scriptural, as will be
understood by every intelligent reader of the Bible.

The Apostle speaks of the church as the body of Christ. Again, “Know ye
not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” And other passages to
the same effect.

The cry of blasphemy has been a favorite device with murderers and
persecutors in all ages.

When Naboth was set on high by Ahab to be slain, proclamation was made,
“This man hath blasphemed God and the King.”

“For a good work we stone you not,” said the Jews to Christ, “but for
_blasphemy_.” And the high priest said of Christ himself, “What need we
any further witness? Have we not heard his blasphemy from his own
mouth?”

Miss Caulkins, in her “History of New London,” although inclined to
favor the ecclesiastical side, says: “The offences of the Rogerenes were
multiplied and exaggerated, both by prejudice and rumor. Doubtless a
sober mind would not now give so harsh a name to expressions which our
ancestors deemed blasphemous.”

It will be remembered that in 1677, “the court ordered that John Rogers
should be called to account once a month and fined £5 each time,”
irrespective of his innocence or guilt, and without trial of either.
This unrighteous order would seem to have been in force fifteen years
later, viz., in November, 1692. “At that time,” says Miss Caulkins,
“besides his customary fines for working on the Sabbath and for
baptizing, he was amerced £4 for entertaining Banks and Case (itinerant
exhorters) for a month or more at his house.”—“Customary fines!”

In the spring of 1694, Rogers was transferred from the New London to the
Hartford Prison. Why was this transfer made? Perhaps that the charges of
blasphemy brought against him might with more certainty be sustained
where he was not known. Perhaps that the sympathies of the people would
not be as likely to find expression there as they sometimes did at his
outrageous treatment in New London; as will be seen. Or, by a more
rigorous treatment he might be made to submit.

In Hartford he was placed in charge of a cruel and unprincipled jailer,
who was entirely subservient to the will of his enemies, and who told
John Rogers _he_ would make him comply with their worship, if the
authorities could not.

What prompted, we might ask, the unusual and merciless treatment that he
received during this imprisonment at Hartford? He had not offended the
authorities nor the people there; he was a stranger in their midst. The
same remorseless spirit that had delivered him up to them as guilty of
blasphemy was doubtless the moving, animating cause of such savage
conduct. Scarcely four months had elapsed after his release from the
Hartford prison where he had been confined nearly four years, before the
Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall brought a suit of defamation against him, for
the most trivial reasons, as we have seen (Chapter I), and upon no legal
grounds whatever; yet a parasitical jury awarded the august complainant
damages in the unconscionable sum of £600. Of this proceeding, Miss
Caulkins, in her “History of New London,” says: “Rogers had not been
long released from prison, before he threw himself into the very jaws of
the lion, as it were, by provoking a personal collision with Mr.
Saltonstall, the minister of the town.”

“Jaws of the lion!” Perhaps Miss Caulkins builded wiser than she knew.
We had not ourselves presumed to characterize Mr. Saltonstall as the
king of beasts; but, since John Rogers, so far as we know, was never
charged with deviation from the truth, except in the above mentioned
suit, while the Rev. Mr. Saltonstall was not above suspicion, as will
appear by the false charge of blasphemy he brought against Rogers, and
by other acts of which we shall speak hereafter, we will leave the
reader to judge on which side the truth lay in this case.

It should be remembered that years had elapsed after the fines,
imprisonments, etc., of Rogers had commenced—for non-attendance at the
meetings of the standing order, for baptizing, breach of the Sabbath,
etc.—before he was charged with entering the meeting-house in time of
public worship and remonstrating there with the people. It was not in
self-defence alone, it was in defence of justice that he spoke. Who were
the first aggressors? Who disturbed him in the performance of the
baptismal rites? Who interfered with his meetings? Who entered them as
spies, to lay the foundation for suits against him? These things have
not been referred to; they have not been confessed; they have not been
apologized for, on the part of the standing order. If John Rogers was
such a terrible sinner for what he did to them, how much greater
accountability will they have to meet who, without any just cause, made
their attack upon him!

There are fires burning in the heart of every good man that cannot be
quenched. As well undertake to smother the rays of the sun or to confine
ignited dynamite. We would not justify breach of courtesy, or any other
law not contrary to the law of God; but there are times when to be
silent would be treason to truth.

John Roger’s father was the largest taxpayer in the colony, and had
himself alone been subjected to the payment of one-tenth part of the
cost of building the meeting-house, while John Rogers and his adherents,
who were industrious, frugal, and thrifty people—or they never could
have sustained the immense fines imposed upon them without being brought
to abject poverty—had probably paid as much more; so we may suppose that
at least one-fifth of the meeting-house, strictly speaking, belonged to
them, while they were constantly being taxed for the support of this
church of their persecutors.

The meeting-house was, in those times, quite often used for public
purposes; in fact, the courts were frequently held there. How, upon a
week day, could he have found an audience of his persecutors, or
permission to address them? If he had published a circular it would have
been deemed a scandalous paper, for which he might have been fined and
imprisoned. He could scarcely get at the ear of the people in any other
way than by the course he took, and he could in no other way put as
forcible a check upon the church party persecutions of his own sect.

There are volcanoes in nature; may there not be such in the moral world?
Who knows but they are safety valves to the whole system. It cannot be
denied that the church gave ample and repeated occasion to call from
these reformers something more than the sound of the lute. These moral
upheavings must tend to a sublime end, and like adversity have their
sweet uses. We are now breathing the fragrance of the flower planted in
the dark soil of those turbulent times. Of the Puritanism of New
England, we must say it is bespattered with many a blot, which ought not
to be passed over with zephyrs of praise. “Fair weather cometh out of
the north. Men see not the bright light in the cloud. The wind passeth
over and cleanseth them.” Let us revere the names of all who, in the
face of suffering and loss, have dared to stand up boldly in truth’s
defence.

To impress men to haul an apostle of liberty from jail to jail, break
into the sanctity of family relations, imprison fathers and mothers,
purloin their property, for no just cause whatever, leaving their
children to cry in the streets for bread, and this under the cloak of
religion, is an offence incomparably greater than to make one’s voice
heard in vindication of truth, even in a meeting-house.

The offences of John Rogers, whatever they may have been, encountering
opposition with opposition, in which facts were the only swords, and
words the only lash, are as insignificant as the fly on the elephant’s
back compared with the treatment that he and his followers received from
those who had fled from persecution in the Old World to stain their own
hands with like atrocities in the New.

Of the almost unprecedented suffering and cruelties which John Rogers
endured for conscience’s sake, and in the cause of religious freedom,
for many years, and particularly of his confinement in the Hartford
prison, he here tells the story, written by himself about twelve years
after his release from that prison. See “Midnight Cry,” pages 4-16:—

_Friends and Brethren_:—

I have found it no small matter to enter in at the straight gate and
to keep the narrow way that leads unto life; for it hath led me to
forsake a dear wife and children, yea, my house and land and all my
worldly enjoyment, and not only so, but to lose all the friendships of
the world, yea, to bury all my honor and glory in the dust, and to be
counted the off-scouring and filth of all things; yea, the straight
and narrow way hath led me into prisons, into stocks and to cruel
scourgings, mockings and derision, and I could not keep in it without
perfect patience under all these things; for through much tribulation
must we enter into the kingdom of God.

I have been a listed soldier under His banner now about thirty-two
years, under Him whose name is called the Word of God, who is my
Captain and Leader, that warreth against the devil and his angels,
against whom I have fought many a sore battle, within this thirty-two
years, for refusing to be subject to the said devil’s or dragon’s
laws, ordinances, institutions and worship; and for disregarding his
ministers, for which transgressions I have been sentenced to pay
hundreds of pounds, laid in iron chains, cruelly scourged, endured
long imprisonments, set in the stocks many hours together, out of the
bounds of all human law, and in a cruel manner.

Considering who was my Captain and Leader, and how well He had armed
me for the battle, I thought it my wisdom to make open proclamation of
war against the dragon, accordingly I did, in writing, and hung it out
on a board at the prison window, but kept no copy of it, but strangely
met with a copy of it many years after, and here followeth a copy of
it. (See Part II, Chapter IV.) This proclamation of War was in the
first month, and in the year 1694. It did not hang long at the Prison
window before a Captain, who also was a Magistrate, came to the prison
window and told me he was a Commission Officer and that proclamations
belonged to him to publish; and so he took it away with him, and I
never heard anything more about it from the Authority themselves; but
I heard from others, who told me they were present and heard it read
among the Authority, with great laughter and sport at the fancy of it.

But the Dragon which deceiveth the whole world, pitted all his forces
against me in a great fury; for one of his ministers, a preacher of
his doctrine, not many days after this proclamation, made complaint to
the Authority against me, as I was informed, and after understood it
to be so by the Authority, and that he had given evidence of Blasphemy
against me; though nothing relating to my proclamation; and this
following Warrant and Mittimus was issued against me, while I was in
New London prison, which I took no copy of also; but the Mittimus
itself came to my hands as strangely as the copy of the Proclamation
did; of which here followeth a copy:—

MITTIMUS.

“Whereas John Rogers of New London hath of late set himself in a
furious way, in direct opposition to the true worship and pure
ordinances and holy institution of God; as also on the Lord’s Day
passing out of prison in the time of public worship, running into the
meeting-house in a railing and raging manner, as being guilty of
Blasphemy.

“To the Constable of New London, or County Marshal, these are
therefore in their Majestie’s name to require you to impress two
sufficient men, to take unto their custody the body of John Rogers and
him safely to convey unto Hartford and deliver unto the prison-keeper,
who is hereby required him the said John Rogers to receive into
custody and safely to secure in close prison until next Court of
Assistants held in Hartford. Fail not: this dated in New London, March
28th, 1694.”

By this Warrant and Mittimus I was taken out of New London Prison, by
two armed men, and carried to the head jail of the Government, where I
was kept till the next Court of Assistants, and there fined £5 for
reproaching their ministry, and to sit on the gallows a quarter of an
hour with a halter about my neck; and from thence to the prison again,
and there to continue till I paid the said £5 and gave in a bond of
£50 not to disturb their churches; where I continued three years and
eight months from my first commitment. This was the sentence. And upon
a training day the Marshall came with eight Musqueteers, and a man to
put the halter on, and as I passed by the Train Band, I held up the
halter and told them my Lord was crowned with thorns for my sake and
should I be ashamed to go with a halter about my neck for His sake?
Whereupon, the Authority gave order forthwith that no person should go
with me to the gallows, save but the guard; the gallows was out of the
town. When I came to it, I saw that both gallows and ladder were newly
made. I stepped up the ladder and walked on the gallows, it being a
great square piece of timber and very high. I stamped on it with my
feet, and told them I came there to stamp it under my feet; for my
Lord had suffered on the gallows for me, that I might escape it.

From thence, I was guarded with the said eight Musqueteers to the
prison again. Being come there, the Officers read to me the Court’s
sentence and demanded of me whether I would give in a bond of £50 not
to disturb their churches for time to come, and pay the £5 fine. I
told them I owed them nothing and would not bind myself.

About five or six months after, there was a malefactor taken out of
the prison where I was and put to death, by reason of which there was
a very great concourse of people to behold it; and, when they had
executed him, they stopped in the street near to the prison where I
was, and I was taken out (I know not for what) and tied to the
carriage of a great gun, where I saw the County whip, which I knew
well, for it was kept in the prison where I was, and I had it
oftentimes in my hand, and had viewed it, it being one single line
opened at the end, and three knots tied at the end, on each strand a
knot, being not so big as a cod-line; I suppose they were wont, when
not upon the Dragon’s service, not to exceed forty stripes, according
to the law of Moses, every lash being a stripe.

I also saw another whip lie by it with two lines, the ends of the
lines tied with twine that they might not open, the two knots seemed
to me about as big as a walnut; some told me they had compared the
lines of the whip to the lines on the drum and the lines of the whip
were much bigger. The man that did the execution did not only strike
with the strength of his arm, but with a swing of his body also; my
senses seemed to be quicker, in feeling, hearing, discerning, or
comprehending anything at that time than at any other time.

The spectators told me they gave me three score stripes, and then they
let me loose and asked me if I did not desire mercy of them. I told
them, “No, they were cruel wretches.” Forthwith, they sentenced me to
be whipped a second time. I was told by the spectators that they gave
me sixteen stripes; and from thence I was carried to the prison again;
and one leg chained to the cell. A bed which I had hired to this time,
at a dear rate, was now taken from me by the jailer, and not so much
as straw to lie on, nor any covering. The floor was hollow from the
ground, and the planks had wide and open joints. It was upon the 18th
day of the 8th month that I was thus chained, and kept thus chained
six weeks, the weather cold. When the jailer first chained me, he
brought some dry crusts on a dish and put them to my mouth, and told
me he that was executed that day had left them, and that he would make
me thankful for them before he had done with me, and would make me
comply with their worship before he had done with me though the
Authority could not do it; and then went out from me and came no more
at me for three days and three nights; nor sent me one mouthful of
meat, nor one drop of drink to me; and then he brought a pottinger of
warm broth and offered it to me. I replied, “Stand away with thy
broth, I have no need of it.”

“Ay! ay!” said he, “have you so much life yet in you?” and went his
way. Thus I lay chained at this cell six weeks. My back felt like a
dry stick without sense of feeling, being puffed up like a bladder, so
that I was fain to lie upon my face. In which prison I continued three
years after this, under cruel sufferings.

But I must desist; for it would contain a book of a large volume to
relate particularly what I suffered in the time of this imprisonment.
But I trod upon the Lion and Adder, the young lion and the dragon I
trampled under my feet, and came forth a conqueror, through faith in
Him who is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and hath overcome
death itself for us, and him that hath the power of it also, who is
the devil. But this long war hath kept me waking and watching and
looking for the coming of the bridegroom and earnestly desiring that
his bride may be prepared and in readiness to meet Him in her
beautiful garments, being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white,
which is the righteousness of the saints.

We are glad to set before the gaze of the world an example of moral
heroism, courage and endurance, strongly in contrast with the spirit of
this pleasure-loving, gain-seeking age. A light shining in a dark place,
which the storms of persecution could not extinguish nor its waves
overwhelm.

Mr. McEwen says, in his Half-Century Sermon:—

During the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall, and reaching down through the
long ministry of Mr. Adams, and the shorter one of Mr. Byles, a
religious sect prevailed here whose acts were vexatious to this church
and congregation. I have no wish to give their history except so far
as their fanaticism operated as a persecution of our predecessors in
this place of worship.

On the side of the oppressor there was power, said Solomon. These people
were powerless from the beginning, so far as the secular or
ecclesiastical arm was concerned. The power lay in the church and state,
and was freely exercised by both, in a cruel and most tyrannical manner,
as undisputed history attests.

Mr. McEwen admits that the Rogerenes held the doctrine of non-resistance
to violence from men. Referring to this sect in the time of Mr.
Byles,[7] he says:—

“They were careful to make no resistance, showing their faith by their
works,” and relates an anecdote which reflects no credit upon the
officers of the law at that day. He says:—

One constable displayed his genius in putting the strength of this
principle of non-resistance to a test. He took a bold assailant of
public worship down to the harbor, placed him in a boat that was
moored to a stake in deep water, perforated the bottom of the boat
with an auger, gave the man a dish and left him to live by faith or
die in the faith.

-----

Footnote 7:

During the countermove, 1764-1766. See Part II, Chapter XII.

-----

Quoting the words of Satan, Mr. McEwen adds, “Skin for skin, all that a
man hath will he give for his life.” The faith of the man was strong,
yet he was saved not by faith, but by bailing water.

Mr. McEwen is quick to condemn the infringement of the law when charged
upon the Rogerenes, but makes no objections to the constable’s outrage
upon law, and no reference to the hundred years of oppression, in fines,
whippings, imprisonments, etc., which the Rogerenes had then endured;
fines which, with, interest, would have amounted to millions of dollars
at the time Mr. McEwen was speaking.

But, notwithstanding the principles of non-resistance so publicly
professed by the Rogerenes, from whom the weakest had nothing to fear,
Mr. McEwen dwells strongly upon the terrors which they inspired. He
says:—

Mr. Saltonstall and Mr. Adams were brave men. Mr. Byles was a man of
less nerve and he suffered not a little from their annoyances. He was
actually afraid to go without an escort, lest he should suffer
indignities from them.

We have shown (Chapter I) the transparent groundlessness of another
statement made of their rudeness by Mr. McEwen, which we need not
repeat; but the trials into which Mr. Byles was thrown and the escort
deemed necessary present such a comical aspect that the following lines
from Mother Goose seem appropriate to the case:—

Four and twenty tailors
Went to kill a snail,
The best man among them
Durst not touch its tail;
It stuck up its horns,
Like a little Kyloe cow;
Run! tailors, run! or it
Will kill you all just now.

Mr. Byles, who was ordained in 1757, seems to have been as much
displeased with the church as with the Rogerenes themselves; for in 1768
he left New London, renounced the Congregational church and abandoned
its ministry altogether. (See Part II, Chapter XII.)

Herod and Pilate were men of note in their day. What are they thought of
now? The records of history show many examples of this sort. Quakers
were once persecuted and slain. Men are now proud of such ancestry. Let
the calumniated wait their hour. The progress of truth adown the ages is
slow, but its chariot is golden and its coming sure.

CHAPTER III.

As round and round it takes its flight,
That lofty dweller of the skies,
And never on the earth doth light,
The fabled bird of Paradise;
So would we soar on pinions bright,
And ever keep the sun in sight,
That sun of truth, whose golden rays
Are as the “light of seven days.”

Falsehood is the bane of the world. It links men with him who was a liar
from the beginning. We would bruise a lie as we would a serpent under
our feet. Not so much to defend persons as to vindicate justice do we
write.

It has been said that toleration is the only real test of civilization.
But toleration is not the word; all men are entitled to equal religious
freedom, and any infringement thereof is an infringement of a God-given
right.

Who was the most calumniated person the world has ever seen,—stigmatized
as a blasphemer, as a gluttonous man, as beside himself, as one that
hath a devil? From his mouth we hear the words: “Blessed are ye when men
shall persecute and revile you, and say all manner of evil against you
falsely.”

John Rogers and his disciples, who, in the face of so much obloquy,
nurtured the tree of liberty with tears, with sacrifices and with blood,
would seem to be entitled to this blessing.

Is it not strange, as we have before said, that Mr. McEwen should say,
“To pay taxes of any kind grieved their souls”?

Ought a public teacher to state that which a little research on his part
would have shown him to be false?

Miss Caulkins sets this matter in its true light, as already shown, and
it will be further elucidated by the words of John Rogers, 2d, here
given:—

Forasmuch as we acknowledge the worldly government to be set up of
God, we have always paid all public demands for the upholding of the
same, as Town Rates and County Rates and all other demands, excepting
such as are for the upholding of hireling ministers and false
teachers, which God called us to testify against.

Now when the worldly rulers take upon themselves to make laws relating
to God’s worship, and thereby do force and command men’s consciences,
and so turn their swords against God’s children, they then act beyond
their commission and jurisdiction.

Thus it is by misrepresentations without number that the name and fame
of these moral heroes have been tarnished.

We will again refer to the false statements in Dr. Trumbull’s History,
nearly all of which aspersions are taken from that volume of falsehoods
written by Peter Pratt after Roger’s death, from which we shall
presently make quotations that, we doubt not, will convince the
intelligent reader that this author was unscrupulous to a degree utterly
incomprehensible, unless by supposition of a natural tendency to
falsehood.

Yet it is from this book of Pratt’s that historians have drawn nearly
all their statements regarding the Rogerenes.

Trumbull (quoting from Pratt) says: “John Rogers was divorced from his
wife for certain immoralities.”

The General Court divorced him from his wife without assigning any cause
whatever, of which act Rogers always greatly complained. It was left for
his enemies to circulate the above scandal, with the intent to blacken
his character and thus weaken Rogerene influence. John Rogers, 2d,
testifies that his mother left her husband solely on account of his
religion. He says (“Ans. to Peter Pratt”):—

I shall give the reader a true account concerning the matter of the
first difference between John Rogers and his wife, as I received it
from their own mouths, they never differing in any material point as
to the account they gave about it.

Although I did faithfully, and in the fear of God, labor with her in
her lifetime, by persuading her to forsake her adulterous life and
unlawful companions; yet, since her death, should have been glad to
have heard no more about it, had not Peter Pratt, like a bad bird,
befouled his own nest by raking in the graves of the dead and by
publishing such notorious lies against them “whom the clods of the
valley forbid to answer for themselves;”[8] for which cause I am
compelled to give a true account concerning those things, which is as
follows:—

-----

Footnote 8:

Here John Rogers quotes from Peter Pratt.

-----

John Rogers and his wife were both brought up in the New England way
of worship, never being acquainted with any other sect; and although
they were zealous of the form which they had been brought up in, yet
were wholly ignorant as to the work of regeneration, until, by a sore
affliction which John Rogers met with, it pleased God to lay before
his consideration the vanity of all earthly things and the necessity
of making his peace with God and getting an interest in Jesus Christ,
which he now applies himself to seek for, by earnest prayer to God in
secret and according to Christ’s words, Matt. vii, 7, 8, “Ask and it
shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be
opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that
seeketh findeth,” etc.

And he coming to witness the truth of these scriptures, by God’s
giving him a new heart and another spirit, and by remitting the guilt
of his sins, did greatly engage him to love God with all his heart,
and his neighbor as himself, as did appear by his warning all people
he met with to make their peace with God, declaring what God had done
for his soul.

Now his wife, observing the great change which was wrought in her
husband, as appeared by his fervent prayers, continually searching the
scriptures, and daily discoursing about the things of God to all
persons he met with, and particularly to her, persuading her to
forsake her vain conversation and make her peace with God, did greatly
stir her up to seek to God by earnest prayer, that he would work the
same work of grace in her soul, as she saw and believed to be wrought
in her husband.

After some time, upon their diligent searching the holy scriptures,
they began to doubt of some of the principles which they had
traditionally been brought up in; and particularly that of sprinkling
infants which they had been taught to call Baptism; but now they find
it to be only an invention of men; and neither command nor example in
Scripture for it. Upon which, they bore a public testimony against it,
which soon caused a great uproar in the country.

And their relations, together with their neighbors, and indeed the
world in general who had any opportunity, were all united in
persuading them that it was a spirit of error by which they were
deluded.

But the main instrument which Satan at length made use of to deceive
John Roger’s wife, was her own natural mother, who, by giving her
daughter an account of her own conversion, as she called it, and
telling her daughter there was no such great change in the work of
conversion as they had met with; but that it was the Devil had
transformed himself into an angel of light, at length fully persuaded
her daughter to believe that it was even so.

Whereupon, she soon publicly recanted and renounced that Spirit which
she had been led by, and declared it to be the spirit of the Devil,
and then vehemently persuaded her husband to do the like, telling him,
with bitter tears, that unless he would renounce that spirit she dare
not live with him. But he constantly telling her that he knew it to be
the Spirit of God and that to deny it would be to deny God; which he
dare not do.

Whereupon she left her husband, taking her two children with her, and
with the help of her relations went to her father’s house, about
eighteen miles from her husband’s habitation.

And I do solemnly declare, in the presence of God, that this is a true
relation of their first separation, as I received it from their own
mouths, as also by the testimony of two of their next neighbors is
fully proved. (See Chapter IV, 1st Part.)

So doubtful was she herself of the lawfulness of her subsequent
marriage with the father of Peter Pratt, that she never signed her
name Elizabeth Pratt to any legal document; but “Elizabeth, daughter
of Matthew Griswold,” many instances of which are on record.

This charge made against John Rogers, in Dr. Trumbull’s History, is
further shown to be false by the record of the Court at Hartford, May
25, 1675; the grand jury returning that they “find not the bill.” Yet,
in the face of this patent fact, has this false charge been perpetuated
by ecclesiastical historians and their followers. We note, however, one
shining exception, contained in the Saulisbury “Family Histories,” under
the Matthew Griswold line, treating of the divorce of his daughter
Elizabeth, which is here given:—

In 1674, her first husband departed from the established orthodoxy of
the New England churches, by embracing the doctrines of the Seventh
Day Baptists; and, having adopted later “certain peculiar notions of
his own,” though still essentially orthodox as respects the
fundamental faith of his time, became the founder of a new sect, named
after him Rogerenes, Rogerene Quakers, or Rogerene Baptists.
Maintaining “obedience to the civil government,” he denounced as
unscriptural all interference of the civil power in the worship of
God.

It seemed proper to give these particulars with regard to Rogers,
because they were made the ground[9] of a petition by his wife for
divorce, in May, 1675, which was granted by the “General Court,” in
October of the next year, and was followed in 1677 by another, also
granted, for the custody of her children, her late husband being so
“hettridox in his opinions and practice.”

The whole reminds us of other instances, more conspicuous in history,
of the narrowness manifested by fathers of New England towards any
deviations from the established belief, and of their distrust of
individual conscience as a sufficient rule of religious life, without
the interference of civil authority. There is no reason to believe
that the heterodoxy “in practice” referred to in the wife’s last
petition to the Court, was anything else than a nonconformity akin to
that for the sake of which the shores of their “dear old England” had
been left behind forever by the very men who forgot to tolerate it
themselves, in their new Western homes. Of course, like all
persecuted, especially religious, parties, the Rogerenes courted,
gloried in, and profited by, distresses.

-----

Footnote 9:

That this was the true ground, both on the part of the Griswolds and
the General Court, is patent in the light of the many evidences, but
this being untenable ground for a divorce, an ostensible cause was
presented by the Griswolds, which, upon investigation by the grand
jury, brought forth “we find not the bill.” The divorce was,
therefore, granted upon no legal grounds and with no stated cause. For
the authenticated facts, see Part II, Chapter XI.

-----

In Trumbull’s History, we also find the scandalous statement, to which
we have previously referred: “They would come on the Lord’s day into the
most public assemblies nearly or quite naked.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no evidence on record,
or tradition, concerning any such act. Among the hundreds of
prosecutions against the Rogerenes, no such thing is alluded to on the
records, etc. Miss Caulkins in her History makes no reference to this
stigma. Yet Mr. McEwen, in his Half-Century Sermon, says: “Dr. Trumbull
and perhaps some others give us some historical items of the Rogerenes.”

By thus referring to Dr. Trumbull’s History, he virtually, we would hope
not intentionally, indorses all the errors concerning this sect, which
are contained in that work.

But, like the entablature of a column, crowning all the rest, are the
words of Rev. Mr. Saltonstall, credited to same ‘History,’ and which we
have before quoted:—

There never was, for this twenty years that I have resided in this
government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on account
of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this
people.

Why were the Rogerenes fined for observing the seventh day instead of
the first day of the week, consistently with their profession? Why fined
for absenting themselves from the meetings of the Congregational church?
Why forbidden to hold meetings of their own? Why was John Rogers fined
for every one he baptized by immersion, and for entertaining Quakers, as
we have seen? And why did the Hartford jailer say to him: “I will make
you comply with their worship if the Authority cannot”?

Miss Caulkins, though writing in partial defence of the Church, speaks
truthfully on this subject when she says:—

It was certainly a great error in the early planters of New England to
endeavor to produce uniformity in doctrine by the strong arm of
physical force. Was ever religious dissent subdued either by petty
annoyance or actual cruelty? Is it possible to make a true convert by
persecution? The principle of toleration was, however, then less
clearly understood.

This self-justification of Mr. Saltonstall would seem to vie for
insincerity with the language used by papists, as they handed over
heretics to the civil power, asking that they be treated with mercy and
that not a drop of blood be shed, meaning that they be burned.

It is not unlike what that most cruel persecutor, Philip II of Spain,
husband of Bloody Mary, said of himself: “that he had always from the
beginning of his government followed the path of clemency, according to
his natural disposition, so well known to the world;” or what Virgilius
wrote of the merciless Duke of Alva, while the latter was carrying out
some of the most diabolical devices of the Inquisition, under the orders
of this same king Philip: “All,” said Virgilius, “venerate the prudence
and gentleness of the Duke of Alva.”

Mr. Saltonstall’s words also run in a groove with those of Peter Pratt,
the great traducer. “In short,” says Pratt, “he never suffered the loss
of one hair of his head by the Authority for any article of his
religion, nor for the exercise of it.”

To which John Rogers, 2d, replies:—

In answer to this last extravagant assertion, which the whole
neighborhood knows to be false, I shall only mention the causes of
some few of his sufferings, which I am sure that both the records and
neighborhood will witness the truth of.

In the first place, he lost his wife and children on the account of
his religion, as has been fully proved.

The next long persecution, which both himself and all his Society
suffered for many years, was for refusing to come to Presbyterian
meetings; upon which account, their estates were extremely destroyed
and their bodies often imprisoned.

Also the multitude of fines and imprisonments which he suffered on the
account of baptizing such as desired to be baptized after the example
of Christ, by burying in the water. All which fines and imprisonments
were executed in the most rigorous manner. Sometimes the officers,
taking him in the dead of winter, as he came wet out of the water,
committed him to prison without a spark of fire, with many other cruel
acts, which for brevity I must omit.

Moreover, the many hundreds of pounds which the collectors have taken
from him for the maintainance of the Presbyterian ministers, which
suffering he endured to the day of his death and which his Society
still suffers.

But, forasmuch as his sufferings continued more than forty years, and
were so numerous that I doubt not but to give a particular account of
them would fill a larger volume than was ever printed in New England,
I must desist.

But the same spirit of persecution under which he suffered, is yet
living among us; as is evidenced by what here follows:—

The last fifth month called July, in the year 1725, we were going to
our meeting, being eight of us in number, it being the first day of
the week, the day which we usually meet on as well as the rest of our
neighbors; and as we were in our way, we were taken upon the king’s
highway, by order of Joseph Backus, called a justice of the peace, and
the next day by his order cruelly whipped, with an unmerciful
instrument, by which our bodies were exceedingly wounded and maimed;
and the next first day following, as we were returning home from our
meeting, we were again, three of us, taken upon the king’s highway, by
order of John Woodward and Ebenezer West of Lebanon, called justices
of the peace, and the next day by them sentenced to be whipped, and
were accordingly carried to the place of execution and stripped in
order to receive the sentence; but there happened to be present some
tender-spirited people, who, seeing the wounds in our bodies we had
received the week before, paid the fines and so prevented the
punishment.

And also the same John Woodward, soon after this, committed two of our
brethren to prison, viz., Richard Man and Elisha Man, for not
attending the Presbyterian meeting, although they declared it to be
contrary to their consciences to do so. Neither have their persecutors
allowed them one meal of victuals, nor so much as straw to lie on, all
the time of their imprisonment; although they are well known to be
very poor men.

But, to return to the matter I was upon, which was to prove Peter
Pratt’s assertion false, in saying John Rogers never suffered the loss
of one hair of his head by the Authority for any article of his
religion, nor for the exercise of it. And had not Peter Pratt been
bereft as well of reason as conscience, he would not have presumed to
have asserted such a thing, which the generality of the neighborhood
knows to be false.

In further proof of the falsity of Mr. Saltonstall’s assertions, and as
showing also the spirit of those times, we quote the following from Dr.
Trumbull’s History:—

But though the churches were multiplying and generally enjoying peace,
yet sectaries were creeping in and began to make their appearance in
the Colony. Episcopacy made some advances, and in several instances
there was a separation from the Standing Churches. The Rogerenes and a
few Baptists made their appearance among the inhabitants; meetings
were held in private houses, and laymen undertook to administer the
sacraments. This occasioned the following act of the General Assembly,
at their sessions in May, 1723.[10]

“Be it enacted, &c., That whatsoever persons shall presume on the
Lord’s Day to neglect the public worship of God in some lawful
congregation, and form themselves into separate companies in private
houses, being convicted thereof before any assistant or Justice of the
Peace, shall each of them on every such offense, forfeit the sum of
twenty shillings, and that whatsoever person (not being lawfully
allowed minister of the Standing Order) shall presume to profane the
holy sacraments by administering them to any person or persons
whatsoever, and being thereof convicted before the County Court, in
such County where such offense shall be committed, shall incur the
penalty of £10 for every such offense and suffer corporal punishment,
by whipping not exceeding thirty stripes for each offense.”

-----

Footnote 10:

This act was not materially different from the former laws of this
kind.

-----

Previous to this act, the penalty for baptizing by immersion was £5,
which penalty was often inflicted upon John Rogers, as we have seen.

In the Boston plantation, for merely speaking against sprinkling of
infants the like penalty was incurred. Thus thick was the cloud of
bigotry and ignorance which had settled down on the people at that day
and which John Rogers, and his followers by the light of truth labored
to disperse, deserving honor instead of the reproaches which they have
suffered from prejudiced and careless historians and narrow-minded
ecclesiastics.

Still, in the face of facts like these, “all of which he saw and a large
part of which he was,” the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall asserts “that no man
hath suffered on account of his religious opinions,” etc.

Dr. Trumbull says, “Mr. Saltonstall was a great man.”

“They helped every one his neighbor; so the carpenter encouraged the
goldsmith.”—_Isaiah._ “And the great man he uttereth his mischievous
desire: so they wrap it up.”—_Micah._

CHAPTER IV.

One has said that an angel would feel as much honored in receiving a
commission to sweep the streets as though called to a service higher in
the world’s estimation. We confess to something like a street-cleaning
duty in removing the scandals which have settled about the name of John
Rogers.

Since the enemies of Rogers have mainly taken their artillery from
Pratt’s work, the falsity of which has in part been shown, we now
proceed to give it further notice and refutation. Base coin is sometimes
passed around and received as genuine; put to the test, its worth
vanishes. Written in a malignant spirit, with no regard to truth
whatever, the untrustworthiness of Pratt’s book can scarcely be
overstated.

We will continue to quote from this book, and John Rogers, 2d’s “Reply”
to the same.

It remains (says Pratt) that I speak of the third step in Quakerism
taken by John Rogers, who received his first notions of spirituality
from Banks and Case, a couple of lewd men[11] of that sort called
Singing Quakers. These men, as they danced through this Colony, lit on
John Rogers and made a Quaker of him; but neither they nor the Spirit
could teach him to sing. However, he remained their disciple for a
while, and then, being wiser than his teachers, made a transition to
the church of the Seventh Day Baptists. But, the same spirit not
deserting him, but setting in with the disposition of his own spirit
to a vehement affectation of precedency, he resolved to reach it,
though it should happen to lead to singularity; whereupon, after a few
revelations, he resolved upon Quakerism again, though under a
modification somewhat new. I call it Quakerism, not but that he
differed from them in many things, yet holding with them in the main,
being guided by the same spirit, acknowledging their spirit and they
his, he must needs be called a Quaker.

-----

Footnote 11:

We have been unable to find any historical account of Banks and Case;
but that any of the Quakers were “lewd men,” is so incredible as to
need more proof than the mere assertion of Peter Pratt.

-----

Reply of John Rogers, Jr.:—

Every article of this whole paragraph (so far as it relates to John
Rogers) is notoriously false; for the proof of which I have taken
these following testimonies from two of his ancient neighbors, which
though they have always been enemies to his principles, yet have been
very free in giving their testimonies to the truth, signifying their
abhorrence of such an abuse done to a dead man.

“The testimony of Daniel Stubbins, aged about eighty years,
testifieth, that from a lad I have been near neighbor and well
acquainted with John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, to his
dying day, and do testify that the time he first pretended to
spiritual conversation and declared himself to be a converted man,
upon which he broke off from the Presbyterian church in New London and
joined with the Seventh Day Baptists, and his wife therefore left him
and went to her father, Matthew Griswold of Lyme, was about the year
1674, and the time that Case and Banks, with a great company of other
ranters, first came into this Colony was about twelve years after; and
I never heard or understood that J. Rogers ever inclined to their way,
or left any of his former principles on their account.

DANIEL STUBBINS.”

_Dated in New London, June 27, 1725._

“The testimony of Mary Tubbs, aged about seventy-seven years,
testifieth, that I was a near neighbor to John Rogers, late of New
London, deceased, at the time when his wife left him and went to her
father, Matthew Griswold of Lyme, and I had discourse with her the
same day she went, and she informed me that it was because her husband
had renounced his religion and was joined with the Seventh Day
Baptists, and this was about the year 1674, and it was many years
after that one Case and Banks, with a great company of ranters, first
came into this Colony and came to New London and were some days at the
house of James Rogers, where John Rogers then dwelt; but I never
understood that John Rogers inclined to their way or principles, or
countenanced their practices, but continued in the religion which he
was in before.

MARY TUBBS.”

_Dated in New London, June 29, 1725._

Now the first falsehood which I shall observe in this place is his
asserting that “the first notions of spirituality taken by John Rogers
were from Case and Banks,” etc. Whereas the above witnesses testify
that he had broke off from the church of New London and joined with
the Seventh Day Baptists; upon which his wife had left him, and that
all this was many years before Case and Banks came into this Colony.

The second falsehood is his saying, “These men lit on John Rogers and
made a Quaker of him.” Whereas these witnesses testify that he never
inclined to their way, nor countenanced their practices, but continued
in the religion which he was in before.

The third falsehood is his saying, “He remained their disciple for
awhile;” since it is fully proved that he never was their disciple at
all.

The fourth falsehood is his saying that “after he had remained their
disciple awhile he made a transition to the church of the Seventh Day
Baptists.” Whereas it is fully proved that his joining with the
Seventh Day Baptists was many years before those people first came
into this Colony.

And among his other scoffs and falsehoods, he asserts that John Rogers
“often changed his principles.” To which I answer that upon condition
that Peter Pratt will make it appear that John Rogers ever altered or
varied in any one article of his religion, since his separating from
the Presbyterian church and joining with the Seventh Day Baptists,
which is more than fifty years past (excepting only as to the
observation of the seventh day), I will reward him with the sum of £20
for his labor. No, verily, he mistakes the man; it was not John Rogers
that used to change his religion, but it was Peter Pratt himself.

Here follow more of the false statements made by Peter Pratt, which have
been repeated by Trumbull, Barber, and others:—

Great part of his imprisonment at Hartford was upon strong suspicion
of his being accessory to the burning of New London meeting-house.

To which John Rogers, 2d, replies:—

As to this charge against John Rogers concerning New London
meeting-house, were it not for the sake of those who live remote, I
should make no reply to it; because there are so many hundreds of
people inhabiting about New London who know it to be notoriously
false, and that John Rogers was a close prisoner at Hartford (which is
fifty miles distant from New London) several months before and three
years after said meeting-house was burnt. And that this long
imprisonment was for refusing to give a bond of £50, which he declared
he could not in conscience do, and to pay a fine of £5, which he
refused to do, for which reason he was kept a prisoner, from the time
of his first commitment, three years and eight months, and then set at
liberty by open proclamation, is so fully proved by the records of
Hartford that I presume none will dare contradict.

And now, in order to prove Peter Pratt’s affirmation to be false, in
that he affirms that “great part of his imprisonment at Hartford was
upon strong suspicion of his being accessory to the burning of New
London meeting-house,” take these following testimonies:—

“The testimony of Thomas Hancox, aged about eighty years, testifieth,
That when I was goal keeper at Hartford, John Rogers, late of New
London, deceased, was a prisoner under my charge for more than three
years; in which time of his confinement at Hartford, New London
meeting-house was burnt, and I never heard or understood that the
Authority, or any other person, had any mistrust that he was any way
concerned in that fact, nor did he ever suffer one hour’s imprisonment
on that account.

THOMAS HANCOX, Kinsington, Sept. 17, 1725.”

“Samuel Gilbert, aged sixty-two years, testifieth and saith: That at
the time when John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, was a
prisoner several years at Hartford, I did at the same time keep a
public house of entertainment near the prison, and was well knowing to
the concerns of the said Rogers all the time of his imprisonment, and
I do farther testify that New London meeting-house was burnt at the
time while he was a prisoner in said prison, but no part of his
imprisonment was upon that account.

SAMUEL GILBERT, October, 1725.”

Thus it plainly appears that this affirmation concerning New London
meeting-house is a positive falsehood.

He (Pratt) further says that “Rogers held downright that man had no
soul at all, and that though he used the term, yet intended by it
either the natural life, or else the natural faculties, which he
attributed to the body, and held that they died with it, even as it is
with a dog.”

In answer to this notorious falsehood charged upon John Rogers, I
shall boldly appeal to all mankind who had conversation with him in
his lifetime; for that they well knew it to be utterly false: and for
the satisfaction of such as had not acquaintance with him, I shall
refer them to his books, and particularly in this point to his
“Exposition on the Revelations,” beginning at page 232, where he
largely sets forth the Resurrection of the Body, both of the just and
unjust, and of the eternal judgment which God shall then pass upon
all, both small and great. All which sufficiently proves Peter Pratt
guilty of slandering and belying a dead man, a crime generally
abhorred by all sober people; and so shall pass to his 3d chapter,
judging that by these few remarks which have been taken, the reader
may plainly see that the account he pretends to give of John Roger’s
principles is so false and self-contradictory that it deserves no
answer at all, and that it was great folly in Peter Pratt so to expose
himself as to pretend to give an account of John Roger’s principles in
such a false manner; since John Rogers himself has largely published
his own principles in print, which books are plenty, and will fully
satisfy every one that desires satisfaction in that matter of what I
have here asserted.

In page 48 he (Pratt) tells the reader as follows: “But John Rogers
held three ordinances of religious use; viz., Baptism, the Lord’s
Supper, and imposition of hands.” Again, “that all worship is in the
heart only, and there are no external forms.”

Here the reader may observe that, first, he owns that Rogers held
three external ordinances, viz., Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and
imposition of hands; and in the very next words forgets himself and
tells the reader that Rogers held all worship to be in the heart only,
and that there were no external forms. See how plainly he contradicts
himself.

Here we ought to say, without soiling our pen with his obscene language,
that what Peter Pratt said and others have quoted about John Roger’s
“maid” has reference to his second wife, an account of his marriage to
whom, with other facts of the case, we now give to the reader, in the
words of John Rogers, 2d, in his “Reply” to Peter Pratt:—

After John Roger’s first wife had left him, on account of his
religion, he remained single for more than twenty-five years, in hopes
that she would come to repentance and forsake her unlawful companions.
But, seeing no change in her, he began to think of marrying another
woman, and, accordingly, did agree upon marriage with a maid belonging
to New London, whose name was Mary Ransford. They thereupon agreed to
go into the County Court and there declare their marriage; and
accordingly they did so, he leading his bride by the hand into court,
where the judges were sitting and a multitude of spectators present,
and then desired the whole assembly to take notice that he took that
woman to be his wife; his bride also assenting to what he said.
Whereupon, the judge offered to marry them in their form, which John
Rogers refused, telling him that he had once been married by their
Authority, and by their Authority they had taken away his wife again
and rendered him no reason why they did it. Upon which account, he
looked at their form of marriage to be of no value, and therefore
would be married by their form no more, etc. And from the court he
went to the Governor’s house with his bride, and declared their
marriage to the Governor,[12] who seemed to like it well enough, and
wished them much joy, which is a usual compliment.

-----

Footnote 12:

Governor Winthrop.

-----

And thus having given a true and impartial relation of the manner of
his marriage to his second wife, which I doubt not but every
unprejudiced person will judge to be as authentic as any marriage that
was ever made in Connecticut Colony, in the next place, I shall
proceed to inform the reader in what manner he came to be deprived of
this his second wife; for, after they had lived together about three
years and had had two children, the court had up John Roger’s wife and
charged her with fornication, for having her last child, pretending no
other reason than that the marriage was not lawful; and thereupon
called her Mary Ransford, after her maiden name. And then vehemently
urged her to give her oath who was the father of her child, which they
charged to be by fornication, her husband standing by her in court,
with the child in his arms, strictly commanding her not to take the
oath, for these three following reasons:—

First, because it was contrary to Christ’s command, Matt. v, 34, “But
I say unto you, swear not at all,” etc.

A second reason was because it was a vain oath, inasmuch as they had
been married so publickly, and then lived together three years after,
and that he himself did not deny his child, nor did any person doubt
who was the father of the child, etc.

A third reason was, he told her, they laid a snare for her, and wanted
her oath to prove their charge, which was that the child was by
fornication; so that her swearing would be that he was the father of
that child by fornication, and so it would not only be a reproach to
him and the child, but also a false oath, forasmuch as the child was
not by fornication.

For these reasons, he forbid her taking the oath, but bid her tell the
court that her husband was the father of that child in his arms. He
also told her in the court that if she would be ruled by him, he would
defend her from any damage. But if she would join with the court
against him, by being a witness that the child was by fornication, he
should scruple to own her any more as a wife.

But the court continuing to urge her to take the oath, promising her
favor if she took it, and threatening her with severity if she refused
to take it, at length she declared she would not be ruled by John
Rogers, but would accept of the court’s favor, and so took the oath;
and the favor which the court granted her was to pass the following
sentence:—

* * * * *

_New London, at a County Court, the 15th of September, 1702._

Mary Ransford of New London, being presented by the grandjurymen to
this court, for having a child by fornication, which was born in March
last, and she being now brought before this court to answer for the
same, being examined who was the father of her child, she said John
Rogers senior of New London, to which she made oath, the said Rogers
being present.

The court having considered her offense, sentence her, for the same,
to pay unto the County Treasurer forty shillings money, or to be whipt
ten stripes on the naked body. She is allowed till the last of
November to pay the fine.

A true copy of the Record, as far as it respects the said Mary
Ransford, her examination and fine.

Test. JOHN PICKET, _Clerk_.

And now the poor woman found that by her oath she had proved her child
illegitimate, and thereby denied her marriage, and that her husband
dare not own her as a wife; for I think that no woman can be said to
be a wife (though ever so lawfully married) if she turn so much
against her husband as not only to disobey his most strict commands,
but also to prove by her oath that his children are by fornication, as
it was in this case. She was also greatly terrified on account of her
whipping, to avoid which she some time after made her escape out of
the Government, to a remote Island in Rhode Island Government, called
Block Island; and in about eight years after she had thus been driven
from her husband she was married to one Robert Jones, upon said
Island, with whom she still lives in that Government.

Whereupon, John Rogers again lived single twelve years, which was four
years after she was married to Robert Jones, and then he made suit to
one Sarah Coles of Oyster Bay, on Long Island, a widow, and by reason
of the many false reports which had spread about the Country, as if he
had turned away his second wife, etc., he offered the woman to carry
her to Block Island, where she might know the truth of the matter, by
discoursing with the woman herself, as well as the Authority and
neighbors, which accordingly he did; by which means she was so well
satisfied that she proposed to be married before they came off; and
accordingly was married, by Justice Ray.

There are other scandalous stories quoted nearly verbatim from Pratt’s
book by Trumbull, which neither space, nor the patience of the reader,
nor delicacy permits us to repeat, all of which have been completely
refuted by John Rogers, 2d, in his “Reply” to the same.

We will presently entertain the reader with Pratt’s poetical effort
deriding baptism by immersion, concerning which John Rogers, 2d,
replies. It should be remembered that Peter Pratt was the son of John
Roger’s first wife, by her second husband, and was much at the house of
John Rogers, Sr., on visits to his half brother, John, 2d. He was
baptized (viz., rebaptized by immersion) by Rogers, and even suffered
imprisonment, at one time, with other Rogerenes, but apostatized under
persecution and returned to the Congregational church, from which, after
the death of Rogers, he threw at him those poisonous shafts of which the
reader has seen some specimens.

Here follow Pratt’s verses, quoted in “Reply” of John Rogers, 2d:—

And now as to his songs and other verses, I shall be very brief, only
mentioning some of the gross blasphemies which they contain, not
doubting that all sober Christians, together with myself, will abhor
such profaneness as may be seen in page 36, and is as follows:—

That sacramental bond,
By which my soul was tied
To Christ in baptism, I cast off
And basely vilified.
I suffered to be washed
As Satan instituted,
My body, so my soul thereby,
Became the more polluted.

I suppose he intends by that sacramental bond by which he says his
soul was tied to Christ, that non-scriptural practice of sprinkling a
little water out of a basin on his face in his unregenerate state. Now
the scriptures abundantly show us that the Spirit of God is the bond
by which God’s children are sealed or united to him; as Eph. i, 13,
Eph. iv, 3 and 30, John iii, 24. Thus it plainly appears it is the
Spirit of God that is the bond by which God’s children are united to
Christ, and not by sprinkling a little elementary water on their
faces, as Peter Pratt has ignorantly and blasphemously asserted.

Whereas he says he suffered his body to be washed as Satan instituted,
I suppose he intends his being baptized according to the rule of
Scripture of which he gives us an account, page 18, how that he was
stirred up to this ordinance from those words, Acts xxii, 16, “And now
why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins,” and
that accordingly he was baptized by burying his body in the water.

As to the first institutor of this ordinance, we know that John the
Baptist was the first practiser of it, therefore let us take his
testimony as to the institutor of it, which is to be seen John i, 33,
“And I knew Him not, but He that sent me to baptize with water, the
same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit,” etc.

And here I suppose none but Peter Pratt will dare deny that it was God
Almighty that instituted this ordinance and sent John the Baptist to
administer it.

Having given a specimen of Peter Pratt’s poetical effusions, we will
further entertain the reader with some verses by John Rogers, 2d, which
precede his “Reply” to Pratt’s book:—

A POETICAL INQUIRY INTO WHAT ADVANTAGE P. PRATT COULD
PROMISE HIMSELF BY HIS LATE ENGAGEMENT WITH
A DEAD MAN.

I marvel that when Peter Pratt, in armor did appear,
He should engage, in such a rage, a man that’s dead three year.
Could he suppose for to disclose his valour in the field?
Or by his word, or wooden sword, to make his en’my yield?
Did he advance, thinking by chance, and taking so much pain,
To fright away a lump of clay, some honour for to gain?
Was his intent by argument, some honour for to have?
Or gain repute by making mute a man that’s in his grave?
Why did he strain his foolish brain, and muse upon his bed,
To study lies, for to despise a man when he is dead?
Why did he flout his venom out against the harmless dirt,
Which when alive did never strive to do the creature hurt?
No manly face, or Godly grace such actions will uphold,
Yet ’tis not new; apostates crew did do the like of old.
When Cain let in that dreadful sin which never can be pardoned,
He then did hate his loving mate, because he was so hardened.
Though Saul before did much adore his well-belovèd David,
Yet in the state that I relate his life he greatly cravèd.
In Judas we may also see another strange disaster,
Who for small gain did take such pain to sell his blessèd Master.
Apostates then, the vilest men, they’re always most forlorn;
Because such deeds from them proceeds which other men do scorn.
Such raging waves Satan depraves of all humanity;
They can embrace no saving grace, nor yet civility.
Had but this strife been in the life of his supposèd foe,
Then Peter Pratt would like a rat into a corner go;
Or flee apace, or hide his face, although that now he glories
To trample on one dead and gone, with his debauchèd stories.

A certain tribe of Indians would not allow the burial of any one until
some person could speak a word in his praise. On one such occasion,
silence long reigned, when a squaw arose and said, “He was a good
smoker.” What can we say of Peter Pratt, that the right of sepulture may
be granted him? This may be said: He at one time thought he had
discovered the “wonderful art of longitude,” by which he expected to be
made famous the world over, and presented his scheme to the faculty of
Yale College, who regarded it as the product of an hallucinated mind.
Upon this, Pratt gave up the fallacy, which should be spoken to his
praise. The following testimony which he gave in his book regarding John
Rogers, 2d, and incidentally in favor of John Rogers senior, should also
be put to his credit:—

My near alliance to John Rogers (then junior) who is my brother, viz.,
the son of my mother, proved an unhappy snare to me. He being,
naturally, a man as manly, wise, facetious and generous perhaps as one
among a thousand, I was exceedingly delighted in and with his
conversation. He also endeared himself to me very much by his repeated
expressions of complacency in me, by which I was induced to be
frequently in his company and often at his house, where his father
would be entertaining me with exhortations to a religious life,
warning me of the danger of sin, and certainty of that wrath which
shall come on all that know not God. I would sometimes, for curiosity,
be inquiring into his principles, and othertimes, for diversion, be
disputing a point with him; but I knew not that the dead were there,
Prov. ix, 18. I was not religious enough to be much concerned about
his principles, but pitiful enough to be extremely moved with the
story of his sufferings. I had also a reserve in his favor, that it
was possible he might be a good man (the strangeness of his doctrine
notwithstanding), especially seeing all his sufferings were not able
to shake his constancy, or oblige him to recede from the least part of
his religion.

And here a just tribute may be paid to John Rogers, 2d, from whom we
have so largely quoted. The appreciative reader will agree with us in
saying he was a son worthy of the father, in defence of whose honor he
wrote. Clear in his statement of facts, conclusive in his reasoning, and
abundantly supplied with authority in proof of his assertions, his words
bear the sacred impress of truth. Malice has raised no aspersions
against his character. “Notwithstanding,” says Miss Caulkins, “his long
testimony and his many weary trials and imprisonments, he reared to
maturity a family of eighteen children, most of them, like their
parents, sturdy Rogerenes.” As soon as he was able to make choice for
himself, about the age of sixteen, he left the home of his grandfather,
Matthew Griswold of Lyme, the ancestor of many noted men, and chose to
live with his father. His sister did the same thing at the age of
fourteen, and was married at her father’s house. A purer, sweeter, and
higher tribute could scarcely be paid to that heroic defender of
religious liberty and great sufferer for conscience’ sake.

John Rogers, 2d, was the author of several other books besides his
“Reply to Peter Pratt,” each of them being of the same able character.

CHAPTER V.

“Nine and twenty knives.”—Ezra i, 9. It would take more than that number
of knives to sever the many threads of falsehood and malice wound about
the name of John Rogers, a name that may yet emerge as the royal
butterfly from its chrysalis, to dwell in the light and atmosphere of
heaven.

We must now charge the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, governor of the State of
Connecticut, and judge of its Superior Court, with concocting a plan
whereby he and his ecclesiastical accomplices might incarcerate John
Rogers in the Hartford jail, exclude him from the light, and hide him
from the public thought. Had this nefarious scheme succeeded, Rogers
would doubtless have been held a close prisoner for life; but he was
apprised of it and enabled to make his escape, like as St. Paul was let
down in a basket from the wall of Damascus to elude the fury of his
enemies. The governor’s suit against him for slanderous words—not
slanderous in law—for which a subservient jury awarded him damages in
the sum of £600, proves with what malign purpose Roger’s conduct was
watched by him.

Here follows an account of the above mentioned plot and other matters,
in Roger’s own words, copied from his address to the civil authorities
and particularly to Gov. Saltonstall, in which he recounts some of the
atrocious wrongs he had received from them,—wrongs which could hardly
gain credence had they not been openly published at the time, during the
life of Gov. Saltonstall, and not denied by him.

The last fine you fined me was ten shillings. All that I did was
expounding upon a chapter in the Bible between your meetings, after
the people were gone to dinner, which you call a riot. I went into no
other seat but that which I was seated in by them whom the town
appointed to seat every one. The building of the meeting-house cost me
three of the best fat cattle I had that year and as many sheep as sold
for thirty shillings in silver money. For which said fine of ten
shillings, the officer took ten sheep, as some told me that helped to
drive them away. The sheep were half my son’s. They were marked with a
mark that we marked creatures with that were between us, which said
mark had been recorded in the town book, I suppose for above twenty
years. And after they were sold, the officer went into my son’s
pasture, unbeknown to him, and took a milch cow which was between us
(my part he hired), all upon the same fine of ten shillings. Such
things as these have been frequently done upon us; but my purpose is
brevity, and such things as these would contain a great volume;
therefore I think to mention but one more. I was fined £20 by a
Superior Court for charging an Inferior Court with injustice for
trying upon life and death without a jury. The judge of the Superior
Court that fined me was this present Governor, who also denied me a
jury, though I chose the jury then panelled. For which £20 and the
charges, an execution was laid upon land which I bought for my son,
with his own money, and after it was taken away by said execution, he
went and bought it of you this present Government, and gave you the
money down for it, and you gave him a patent for it I think as
substantial as your patent from the crown of England for your
Government, upon all accounts, being sealed with your seal and with
your present Governor’s hand and your Secretary’s to it. The patent
cost 19s. to the Governor for signing it. And when you had got his
money for it, and given him said patent, then you took this very
individual land from him, and kept his money also, and left him
nothing but said patent in his hand; for said Governor kept the deed
which the man of whom I bought it gave, and keeps it to this day, I
think for that end that my son may not help himself of said deed; for
the man of whom I bought it lives in another Government.

I prosecuted the judges of your said Inferior Court before your
General Court for judging upon life and death without a jury, it being
by your own law out of their jurisdiction to judge in so high a fact
without a jury; the fact also charged to be done in New York
government; to wit, the stealing of three servants out of a man’s
house on Long Island in the night. But you non-suited me in your Court
of Chancery and laid all the charge upon me and fined me £20. So that
if the poor man had not obtained justice in Boston Government, he had
lost his wife and children by you, as I had mine; for he had tried in
Rhode Island Government before, and had got bondsmen to answer all
damages, if he did not make good his right and title to his wife and
children. But said Governor of Rhode Island sent them back to this
present Governor; but, by the good hand of God, they were after
transported into Boston Government, by which means the poor man came
at justice.

I thought to have concluded with what is above written; but, upon
consideration that it is but two things among many, I shall set before
you this last to the end of it. The said Inferior Court did proceed
and pass judgment in a case that was upon life and death by the law of
God, the law of England and your own law, upon a fact charged in
another government, as above said, and without witness. And when I saw
they would proceed, I then drew up the following protest and gave it
unto your court.

* * * * *

The Protest of John Rogers, senior, of New London, against the
proceedings of the present Court, against myself and John Jackson,
being a pretended fact done upon Long Island, within the bounds and
limits of the Government established there for to do justice and
judgment within their limits and territories, and do appeal to their
Court of Justice for a trial where I have evidence to clear myself of
any such fact.

_June 11, 1711._ JOHN ROGERS, Sr.

A true copy, testified George Denison, County Clerk.

_June 28, 1711._

* * * * *

And I do declare unto you, in the presence of God, that I was not at
that time upon Long Island, when the fact was charged to be done,
though I was at that time within the government of New York. But when
I heard the said Court’s sentence, I did declare it to be injustice
and rebellion against the laws of the crown of England; upon which
charge, the said court demanded of me a bond of £200 to answer it at
the next Superior Court. And when the Superior Court came, I desired
to be tried by a jury, and chose that jury then sitting. But this
present Governor, being judge of this Superior Court, denied me a jury
and fined me £20 and required of me a great bond for my good behavior
till the next Superior Court, which I refused to give, upon this
reason that I would not reflect upon myself, as if I had misbehaved
myself, as I had not. Whereupon, I was committed to prison, and kept a
close prisoner in the inner prison, where no fire was allowed me, and
that winter was a violent cold winter and there was no jailer, but the
sheriff kept the keys, who lived half a mile distant from the prison,
and my own habitation full two miles distant; so that it was a
difficult thing for my friends to come at me; the prison new and not
under-pinned, and stood upon blocks some distance from the ground; the
floor, being planked with green plank, shrunk much and let in the
cold. My son was wont in cold nights to come to the grates of the
window to see how I did, and contrived privately in cold nights to
help me with some fire (for the sheriff said he had order that no fire
be allowed me), but could not find any way to make it do by giving it
in at the grates, they being so close, and no place to make it within.
But he, coming in a very cold night, called to me, and perceiving that
I was not in my right senses, was in a fright, and ran along the
street, crying, “The Authority hath killed my father!” and cried at
the sheriff’s, “You have killed my father!” Upon which, the town was
raised and my life was narrowly preserved, for forthwith the prison
doors were opened and fire brought in, and hot stones wrapt in cloth
and laid at my feet and about me, and the minister Adams sent me a
bottle of spirits and his wife a cordial, whose kindness I must
acknowledge. And the neighbors came about me with what relief they
could, all which kindness I acknowledge. But when those of you in
authority saw that I recovered, you had up my son and fined him for
making a riot in the night, and he desired to be tried by a jury, but
you dismissed the jury that was in being and panelled a jury purposely
for him, as I was informed,—and since have seen it to be so by your
own court record,—and took for the fine and charge three of the best
cows I had.

In which prison I lay till the next Superior Court and in the
sheriff’s house. The time of the bond demanded by them being out, I
was dismissed. I think the next day, I was going to baptize a
person,[13] and, as I was going to the water, the sheriff came to me
and desired to speak with me. His house being close by, I went in with
him. He went through two rooms and came to the door of the third, and
then told me the Superior Court had ordered him to shut me up. Upon
that, I made a stop and desired him to show me his order. He said it
was by word of mouth. He keeping a tavern, there were many present who
told him he ought not to shut me up without a written order. He then
laid violent hands upon me to pull me in, but the people rescued me;
and then he told me he would go to the court and get it in writing.
And so he left me and brought this following Mittimus, this present
Governor being judge of this Superior Court also.

-----

Footnote 13:

Not for baptizing a person, but for going to baptize a person, was
Rogers arrested. “Yet,” said Gov. Saltonstall, “there never was any
one that suffered on account of his different persuasion in
religious matters from the body of this people.” The law against
baptizing (other than by the standing order) was simply a fine for
every such baptism.

-----

* * * * *

“To the Sheriff of the County of New London, or to his Deputy:

“By special order of her Majesty’s Superior Court, now holden in New
London, you are hereby required, in her Majesty’s name, to take John
Rogers, Sr., of New London, who, to the view of said Court, appears to
be under a high degree of distraction, and him secure in her majesty’s
jail for the County abovesaid, in some dark room or apartment thereof,
that proper means may be used for his cure, and till he be recovered
from his madness and you receive order for his release.

“Signed by order of the said Court, March 26, 1712. In the 11th year
of Her Majesty’s reign.

“Vera Copia, Testified JONATHAN LAW, _Clerk_.
JOHN PRENTIS, _Sheriff_.”

And upon this Mittimus, he carried me to prison and put me into
the inner prison and had the light of the window stopt. Upon this,
the common people was in an uproar, and broke the plank of the
window and let light in. And one of the lieutenants that came out
of England told me he had been with the said Superior Court and
desired that I might be brought forth to their view, and they
would see that I was under no distraction, and that they had
ordered that I should be brought out to the Governor in the
evening. When it was dark night, I was taken out by the sheriff
and carried to the Governor’s House, into a private room, and the
sheriff sent out by the Governor to see that the yard was clear;
but it is too much to write what was done to some that were found
standing there; but the body of them ran away. The Governor
ordered the sheriff to take me home with him, and keep me at his
house. Accordingly he did so, and gave me charge not to go out of
his yard, but set nobody to look after me; he himself tended on
the said court. About two days after, I was told that the sheriff
told a friend of his that he was ordered, after the court was
broke up and the people dispersed, to carry me up to Hartford
prison and to see me shut up in some dark room, and that one
Laborell, a French doctor, was to shave my head and give me purges
to recover me of my madness. I hearing of this, desired the
sheriff to give me a copy of the Mittimus, and after I told him
what I heard privately, he owned the truth of it. The night
following, I got up and got a neighbor to acquaint my son how
matters were circumstanced, who brought £10 of money for me, and
hired hands to row me over to Long Island, and pulled off his own
shirt and gave me.

I got to Southold, on Long Island, in the night, and, early in the
morning (it being the first day of the week), I went to a justice,
to give him an account of the matter, having told him that I got
away from under the sheriff’s hand at New London. He replied, “It
is the Sabbath; it is not a day to discourse about such things.”
So I returned to the tavern, and I suppose it was not above an
hour before the constable came and set a guard over me, till about
nine or ten of the clock the next day, and then took me where
three justices were sitting at a table, with a written paper lying
before them, who read a law to me that it was to be counted felony
to break out of a constable’s hand. I then presented a copy of the
Mittimus. They read it and desired to be in private. Being brought
before them again, they told me they did not look at me to be such
a person as I was there rendered, and so discharged me, without
any charge.

I told them my design was to their Governor for protection; and
that I expected _Hue and Cries_ to pursue me, and requested of
them to stop them if they could. They promised me they would, and
afterwards I heard they did stop them. I got a man and horse to go
with me to York, with all the speed I could, and the first house I
went into was Governor Hunter’s, in the fort. I showed him the
Mittimus and gave him an account of the matters. He told me he
would not advise me to venture thither again, and that I should
have safe protection. I told him I expected _Hue and Cries_ to
come after me. He told me I need not fear that at all, “For,” said
he, “I have heard you differ in opinion from them, and they will
be glad to be rid of you. It is evident you are no such man as
they pretend.”

But, the next day, about ten of the clock, there came two printed
_Hue and Cries_ in at the tavern where I was, and I got them both,
and went directly to the Governor, who was walking alone on the
wall of the fort, and delivered one of them to him, who read it
and then called to a little man walking on the pavement of the
fort, saying, “Mr. Bickly, Mr. Bickly, come hither.” And when he
was come he read it, and said he, “I grant protection to this man;
he shall not be sent back upon this _Hue and Cry_,” and saith he,
“I will write to the Governor of Connecticut,” and to me he said,
“You are safe enough here; I will grant you protection.” I told
him I did believe no answer would be returned him. He found my
words true, and advised me to go for England and make my
complaint, and told me there was a ship then going from
Pennsylvania. A merchant being then present told me if I wanted
money he would lend it to me, and if I should never be able to pay
him he would never trouble me for it. All this kindness have I met
with from strangers; but have thought it my wisdom to commit my
cause to the all-seeing God.

And after I had continued in York about three months, I returned
home, and, after I was recruited, with great difficulty I
prosecuted the judges of said Inferior Court, for you had made it
so difficult to summon them that none could give forth a summons
but your General Court in such a case; but when I with great
difficulty brought it to your Court of Chancery, you non-suited me
and ordered me to pay all the charges and fined me £20. All which
causes me to suspect your pretended care expressed in your printed
_Hue and Cries_ to cure me of my distraction. And here follows a
copy for you to view:—

ADVERTISEMENT.

Whereas John Rogers, Sr., of New London, being committed to the
custody of her Majesty’s Goal, in the County of New London, which
is under my care, with special orders to keep him in some dark
apartment thereof, until proper means be used for the cure of that
distraction which he appears (to her Majesty’s Court of said
County) to be under in a very high degree, hath, by the assistance
of evil persons, made his escape out of the said custody, these
are therefore to desire all persons to seize and secure the said
Rogers and return him forthwith unto me, the subscriber, sheriff
of the said County, and they shall be well satisfied for the
trouble and charge they may be at therein.

_Dated in New London, March 31, 1712._ JOHN
PRENTIS.

After I returned home, I went to the printer to know who it was
that drew this advertisement up, and he showed me the copy, and I
took it to be Governor Saltonstall’s own hand.

_New London, 15th of the 7th month, 1721._ J.
ROGERS.

Matt. x, 26. “Fear them not therefore, for there is nothing
covered that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be
known.”

We will say a few words in this place concerning the crime of
falsely charging persons with insanity, whether from personal
dislike or from motives of a pecuniary or other nature. Depravity
can scarcely find a lower depth, or infamy wear a deeper brand. Even
now such atrocities are not uncommon, and should be guarded against
with the utmost vigilance. Nearly every one of long and large
experience has been made cognizant of some such diabolism, where the
laws have been too lax in reference to this matter. In the State of
Connecticut, until recently, nothing was required but the
certificate of a physician to secure the incarceration of any one in
a lunatic asylum, with the superintendent’s consent. But by the law
passed, May, 1889, the defect has been thoroughly remedied. It is
also enacted, Section 23, that “Any person who wilfully conspires
with any other person unlawfully to commit to any asylum any person
who is not insane, and any person who shall wilfully and falsely
certify to the insanity of such person, shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the State
Prison not exceeding five years, or both.”

To charge a sane person with insanity, and then devise methods for
his cure which would tend to deprive a sane person of reason! Could
the blade of enmity be drawn to a keener point?

CHAPTER VI.

It is with regret that we are compelled to make the following
strictures upon “The Discourse Delivered on the Two Hundredth
Anniversary of the First Church of Christ, in New London, by Thos.
P. Field, 1870.” Amiable as was its author, and highly esteemed, yet
in this discourse, so far as it relates to the Rogerenes, he has
followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, showing how much
easier it is to float on the surface, with the tide, than to dive
deep and bring up gems from the bottom of the sea. We shall briefly
quote from this discourse and make reply.

Mr. Field says: “During the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall, peculiar
disturbances arose in the church,” referring to the sect called
Rogerenes.

Since we have shown the falsity of many of the statements concerning
the Rogerenes which are repeated by Mr. Field in this discourse, it
is needless to take further notice of them here. But is it not a
matter of surprise that Mr. Field should have spoken with seeming
favor concerning the malicious suit brought by Mr. Saltonstall
against John Rogers for slander? His words are: “On one occasion,
when John Rogers circulated some false report about him, he brought
an action in the county court for defamation and obtained a verdict
of the jury in his behalf.”

He does not tell us the verdict was the enormous sum of £600, and
that there was no legal basis for the action, even had the charge
been true; neither does he state that this suit was brought against
Rogers but a few months after release from his long confinement, of
three years and eight months, in Hartford jail, where he had been
placed at the instance of Mr. Saltonstall, on charge of blasphemy
for words truly scriptural. Mr. Field’s reference to this suit shows
how superficially he had looked into the subject.

We must also express surprise that the statement, so falsely and
unblushingly made by Mr. Saltonstall, should be quoted and indorsed
in Mr. Field’s discourse:—

There never was, for the twenty years that I have resided in this
government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on
account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the
body of this people.

A note appended to Mr. Field’s discourse, may be presumed to contain
his maturest thought, or rather absence of thought. “Lucus a non
lucendo.” The note reads:—

Some who heard the discourse thought the Rogerenes were not
sufficiently commended for what was good in them, and especially
for their protest against the improper mingling of civil and
religious affairs. It is the belief of the writer that there were
a great many who entertained similar views with the Rogerenes on
that subject, but who would not unite with them in their absurd
mode of testifying against what they deemed erroneous.

“Belief of the writer!” Belief is of little consequence, unless
based upon authority or knowledge; and the person who thrusts
forward his simple belief, to command the assent of others, seems to
proffer a valueless coin. But what if there were such among the
people? They were not heard from; and Seneca says, “He who puts a
good thought into my heart, puts a good word into my mouth, unless a
fool has the keeping of it.”

There were a few, however, who did protest against the tyrannical
treatment of the dissenters and in favor of religious freedom; but
they were heavily fined and laid under the ban of the church, as the
blind man who had received his sight was cast out of the temple by
the Jews. From Miss Caulkin’s history, we quote the protest:—

While Rogers was in prison, an attack upon the government and
colony appeared, signed by Richard Steer, Samuel Beebe, Jr.,
Jonathan and James Rogers, accusing them of persecution of
dissenters, narrow principles, self-interest, spirit of
domineering, and saying that to compel people to pay for a
Presbyterian minister is against the laws of England, is rapine,
robbery and oppression.

“A special court was held at New London, Jan. 25th, 1694-5, to
consider this libellous paper. The subscribers were fined £5 each.”

Mr. Field goes on to say, “There can be no justification of their
conduct in disturbing public assemblies as they did, which would not
justify similar conduct at the present day.” So much has been said
about their disturbing public assemblies, and to such varied notes
has the tune been played, that the paucity of other arguments
against the Rogerenes is thereby evinced. Fame, with its hundred
tongues, has no doubt greatly exaggerated these offences, if such
they were. There are some Bible commands that might seem to justify
conduct like that above referred to; as, “Go cry in the ears of this
people.” Fines, whippings, imprisonments, setting in stocks, etc.,
for no crime, but simply for non-conformity to the Congregational
church, were grounds for their conduct which do not now exist. Did
Mr. Field suppose that an intelligent audience would give credence
to his above assertion? or had he taken lessons of the teacher of
oratory who told his pupils to regard his hearers as “so many
cabbage stumps”?

“No justification of their conduct” at that time “which would not
justify similar conduct at the present day!”

There was an evil to be assailed then that has now passed away. The
man who should enter a meeting-house now with a plea for religious
liberty might properly be regarded as a lunatic. But, if the old
abuses were revived, some Samson would again arise, to shake the
pillars of tyranny.

Mr. Field closes his remarks by saying:—

There is no evidence that their testimony or their protestations
had the slightest influence in correcting any of the errors of the
times in respect to the relation of civil and ecclesiastical
authority.

Had Mr. Field said that there was no evidence within his knowledge,
we should have taken no notice of this statement. Confession of
ignorance, like other confessions, may sometimes be good for the
soul. But when he presumes to assert that a fact does not exist of
which other people may be cognizant, he transcends the bounds of
prudence.

Proof is abundant, that the Rogerenes and their descendants were
foremost in advocating the severance of church from state and the
equal rights of all to religious liberty. Their uniform testimony in
Connecticut, for more than a century, in defence of true liberty of
conscience, which awakened so much discussion throughout the State,
could not have been without its enlightening influence.

But we will be more minute by mentioning some of the things which
were said and done by Rogerenes,[14] and by those into whose minds
their doctrines had been early and effectually instilled.

-----

Footnote 14:

Abundant proof of the prominent stand taken by John Rogers himself
in behalf of religious liberty will be found not only throughout
this volume but by extracts from his writings to be found in
Appendix.

-----

John Bolles, whom Miss Caulkins calls “a noted disciple of John
Rogers,” wrote largely on the subject of religious liberty. In his
work, entitled “True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to No
Flesh,” this point is amply discussed. In his address to the Elders
and Messengers of the Boston and Connecticut Colonies, concerning
their Confessions of Faith, which were one and the same, he says:—

First, the Elders and Messengers of each Colony have recommended
them to the Civil Government, and the Civil Government have taken
them under their protection to defend them. And now God hath put
it into my heart to reprove both Governments.

After showing by Scripture that the civil government is ordained of
God to rule in temporal affairs, and not for the government of men’s
consciences in matters of religion, he goes on to say:—

Thus it is sufficiently proved that God hath set up the Civil
Government to rule in the Commonwealth, in temporal things; and as
well proved that he hath not committed unto them the government of
his church. I have proved that the Civil Government as they
exercise their authority to rule only in temporal things are the
ministers of God, and that God hath not committed to them the
government of his Church, or to meddle in cases of conscience.—And
now I speak to you, Elders and Messengers; as you have recommended
your Confessions of Faith; and to you, Rulers of the Commonwealth,
as you have acknowledged them, and established them by law, and
defend them by the carnal sword; I speak, I say, to both parties,
as you are in fellowship with each other in these things, and so
proceed to prove that exercising yourselves in the affairs of
conscience and matters of faith towards God, you do it under the
authority of the dragon, or spirit of antichrist.

And you, Elders and Messengers (as you are called), as you stand
to maintain and defend the said confessions, are not Elders and
Messengers of the churches of Christ, but of antichrist. And you,
Rulers of the Commonwealth of each Government, as you exercise
yourselves as such in the affairs of conscience, and things
relating to the worship of God, you do it not under Christ; but
against Christ, under the power of antichrist, as by the Scripture
hath been fully proved. In the form of church government in
Boston, Confession, Chapter 17, par. 6, they say: “It is the duty
of the Magistrate to take care of matters of religion, and improve
his civil authority for observing the duties commanded in the
first, as well as for observing the duties commanded in the second
table.” And further say, “The end of the Magistrate’s office is
not only the quiet and peaceable life of the subject in matters of
righteousness and honesty, but also in matters of Godliness, yea,
of all godliness.” The gospel was preached and received in
opposition to the civil magistrates, as is abundantly recorded:
And the encouragement Christ has given to his followers is by way
of blessing under persecution: “Blessed are they which are
persecuted for righteousnes’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.” And for any people professing the Christian faith to set
up a form of Godliness, and establish it by their human laws, and
defend it by the authority of the Magistrate, is to exclude Christ
from having authority over his Church, and themselves to be the
supreme head thereof.

The book from which we quote was published about 1754. The
following, from the same book, has reference to the persecutions in
New England, of the Rogerenes and others:—

Now, Boston and Connecticut, let us briefly inquire into the
doings of our forefathers[15] towards those that separated
themselves from them for conscience’ sake, and testified against
their form of godliness. To begin with Connecticut: they punished
by setting in stocks, by fining, whipping, imprisoning and
chaining in prison, and causing to set on the gallows with a
halter about the neck, and prohibiting the keeping Quaker books,
and that such books should be suppressed, as also putting fathers
and mothers both in prison from their children, and then enclosing
the prison with a boarded fence about ten foot high, with spikes
above, points upwards, and a gate kept under lock and key to
prevent any communication of friends or relations with the
prisoners, or communicating anything necessary for their support;
but must go near half a mile to the prison keeper to have the gate
opened.

-----

Footnote 15:

This “Message” of John Bolles was written when the Rogerenes
were not under virulent persecution, of which there was
cessation after the death of Gov. Saltonstall (1724) until the
time of Mather Byles over thirty years later. See Part II.

-----

At New Haven, a stranger, named Humphrey Norton, being put ashore,
not of his own seeking, was put in prison and chained to a post,
and kept night and day for the space of twenty days, with great
weights of iron, without fire or candle, in the winter season, and
not any suffered to come to visit him; and after this brought
before their court, and there was their priest, John Davenport, to
whom said Norton endeavored to make reply, but was prevented by
having a key tied athwart his mouth, till the priest had done;
then, said Norton was had again to prison, and there chained ten
days, and then sentenced to be severely whipped, and to be burned
in the hand with the letter H, for heresy, who, my author says,
was convicted of none; and to be sent out of the Colony, and not
to return upon pain of the utmost penalty they could inflict by
law. And the drum was beat, and the people gathered, and he was
fetched and stripped to the waist, and whipped thirty-six cruel
stripes and burned in the hand very deep with a red-hot iron, as
aforesaid, and then had to prison again and tendered his liberty
upon paying his fine and fees.—See George Bishop: “New England
Judged,” page 203, 4.

These and other like things were done in Connecticut.

Now let us hear what was done in Boston Government, as it is to be
seen in the title-page of said Bishop’s history, touching the
sufferings of the people called Quakers: “A brief relation,” saith
he, “of the suffering of the people called Quakers in those parts
of America, from the beginning of the fifth month, 1656, the time
of their first arrival at Boston from England, to the latter end
of the tenth month, 1660, wherein the cruel whippings and
scourgings, bonds and imprisonments, beatings and chainings,
starvings and huntings, fines and confiscation of estates, burning
in the hand and cutting off ears, orders of sale for bond-men and
bond-women, banishment upon pain of death, and putting to death of
those people are shortly touched, with a relation of the manner,
and some of the most material proceedings, and a judgment
thereupon.” They also burned their books by the common
executioners (see Daniel Neal’s “History of New England,” Vol. I.,
page 292). They also impoverished them by compelling them to take
the oath of fidelity, which they scrupled for conscience’ sake,
and for their refusing of which they were fined £5 each or depart
the Colony; but they, not departing, and under the same scruple,
came under the penalty of another £5; and so from time to time,
and many other fines were imposed on them, as for meeting by
themselves. (See said History, page 320.)

And in said book is contained a brief relation of the barbarous
cruelties, persecutions and massacres upon the Protestants in
foreign parts by the Papists, etc. And now I return to Boston and
Connecticut, with reference to what was said touching the doings
of our forefathers; they not being repented, nor called in
question, but a persisting in acts of force upon conscience in
some measure to this day. But it is the same dragon, and same
persecuting spirit that required the worshipping of idols, and
persecuted the primitive church, that now professes himself to be
a Christian, and furnishes himself with college-learned ministers,
nourished up in pride through idleness and voluptuous living; and
these are his ministers; and they are the same set of men that
Christ thanked God that he had hid the mysteries of the kingdom of
God from, Matt. xi, 25. And he, the dragon, assures the rulers of
the commonwealth that God hath set them to do justice among men,
and to take under their care the government of the church also.

In 1754, I went to the General Court at Hartford, and also to the
General Court at Boston, considering their Confessions were both
one, and that both Governments lie under the same reproof,—and I
have published three treatises already, touching these things; but
there has been no answer made to any, and this is the fourth;
after so much proof, I think it may truly be said of them, as in
Rev. ii, 2, “And thou hast tried them which say they are apostles,
and are not, and hast found them liars.”

In a word, to rule the church by the power of the magistrate is to
destroy the peace of both church, families and commonwealths. But,
on the contrary, Christ is said to be the Prince of Peace. Isaiah
ix, 6. And all that walk in His spirit follow His example, to live
peaceably towards all men, as also towards the Commonwealth, as he
did, for peace’ sake, rather than to offend.

Perhaps we cannot give a better idea of the extent and versatility
of Mr. Bolle’s efforts in this direction, which extended over a long
period, than by transcribing some portion of what is said of him by
his biographer (in “Bolles Genealogy”):—

John Bolles, third and only surviving son of Thomas and Zipporah
Bolles, was born in New London, Conn., August 7, 1767. At the age
of thirty, he became dissatisfied with the tenets of the
Presbyterian church, in which he had been educated. That church
was the only one recognized by law. Its members composed the
standing order, and, from the foundation of the colony until the
adoption of a state constitution and the principle of religious
toleration, in 1818, every person in Connecticut, whatever his
creed, was compelled by law to belong to or pay taxes for
the support of the standing order. It was as complete an
“Establishment” as is the “Established Church of England.” Mr.
Bolles became a Seventh Day Baptist,[16] and was immersed by John
Rogers, the elder. Well educated, familiar with the Bible,
independent in fortune, earnest in his convictions and of a
proselyting spirit, bold and fond of discussion, Mr. Bolles
engaged very actively in polemical controversy, and wrote and
published many books and pamphlets; some of which still extant
prove him to have been, as Miss Caulkins, the historian of New
London, describes him, “fluent with the pen and adroit in
argument.” From one of his books in my possession, it appears that
his escape when his mother and her other children were murdered by
Stoddard, and his deliverance from other imminent perils, “when,”
to use his own words, “there was but a hair’s breadth between me
and death,” made a deep impression on his mind and caused him to
feel that God had spared him for some special work. This belief is
expressed in some homely verses, Bunyan-like in sound, closing
with the following couplet:

“Yet was my life preserved, by God Almighty’s hand,
Who since has called me forth for His great truth to stand!”

-----

Footnote 16:

This is an error. He became a Rogerene after the Rogerene
Society had given up the Seventh Day Sabbath.

-----

Under the spur of this conviction, he devoted himself to the great
cause of religious freedom, encountering opposition and
persecution, and suffering fines, imprisonments and beating with
many stripes.

After referring to several of his books his biographer says:—

I have another of his books, called “Good News from a Far
Country,” whose argument is to prove that the Civil Government
“have no authority from God to judge in cases of conscience,” to
which is added “An Answer to an Election Sermon Preached by
Nathaniel Eells.” Another, dated from New London 11th of 7th
month, 1728 (March being then the first month of the year), is a
pamphlet containing John Bolle’s application to the General Court,
holden at New Haven, the 10th of the 8th month, 1728, informing
that honorable body, “in all the honor and submissive obedience
that God requires me to show unto you,” etc., that he had examined
the Confessions of Faith established by them and found therein
principles that seem not to be proved by the Scriptures there
quoted, and had drawn up some objections thereto, etc. He
published many other works, and from 1708 to 1754 hardly a year
elapsed without his thus assailing the abuses of the established
church and vindicating the great principle of “soul-liberty.” Once
a year, as a general rule, he mounted his horse, with saddle-bags
stuffed full of books, and rode from county to county challenging
discussion, inviting the Presbyterian Elders to meet him,
man-fashion, in argument,[17] or confess and abandon their errors.
“But,” says he, in one of his books, “they disregarded my
request.” He even made a pilgrimage to Boston, Mass., in 1754, to
move the General Court of Massachusetts in this behalf, as he had
often endeavored to move the Connecticut Legislature. This last
exploit, a horseback ride of two hundred miles, in his 77th year,
may be regarded as a fit climax to a long life of zealous effort
in the cause of truth. It is no extravagant eulogy to say that
John Bolles was a great and good man.

-----

Footnote 17:

Such religious debates were common in those days between persons
of different persuasions, especially ministers, elders, etc.

-----

His works are his best epitaph. No man knoweth of his grave unto
this day; but the stars shine over it.

With all the humble, all the holy,
All the meek and all the lowly,
He held communion sweet;
But when he heard the lion roar,
Or saw the tushes of the boar,
Was quick upon his feet:
And what God spake within his heart
He did to man repeat.

So much from one of the early Rogerenes against the union of church
and state and in favor of equal religious liberty; thoughts,
sentiments, principles which lie at the basis of our new
constitution; published and scattered throughout the land at an
early period, instilled into the hearts of children, blossoming out
in speech and inspiring efforts which aided the complete
establishment of religious liberty in Connecticut. Descendants of
John Bolles were among the very foremost, ablest, and most efficient
workers in this cause, baptized, as it were, into these sacred
truths. A few examples will be given; but we can hardly hope that
the despisers of the Rogerenes will find in them “evidence that
their testimony or their protestations had the slightest influence
in correcting any of the errors of the times, in regard to the
relations of civil and ecclesiastical authority.”

To show that early descendants of the Rogerenes were trained in
goodness, as well as in argument, we will speak of John Bolles of
later times, brother of Rev. David Bolles and grandson of the John
Bolles of whom we have said so much. He was the founder, and for
forty years a deacon, of the First Baptist Church of Hartford, of
which Rev. David Bolles was one of the first preachers. We quote
some interesting passages concerning him from Dr. Turnbull’s
“Memorials of the First Baptist Church, Hartford, Conn.,” which were
read by Dr. Turnbull as sermons, after the dedication of the new
church edifice, May, 1856:—

There was no man, perhaps, to whom our church, in the early period
of its history, was more indebted than John Bolles.... He was a
Nathaniel indeed, in whom there was no guile. And yet, shrewd
beyond most men, he never failed to command the respect of his
acquaintances. Everybody loved him. Decided in his principles, his
soul overflowed with love and charity. Easy, nimble, cheerful, he
was ready for every good word and work. He lived for others. The
young especially loved him. The aged, and above all the poor,
hailed him as their friend. He was perpetually devising something
for the benefit of the church or the good of souls. How or when he
was converted he could not tell. His parents were pious, and had
brought him up in the fear of God, and in early life he had given
his heart to Christ, but all he could say about it was that God
had been gracious to him and he hoped brought him into his fold.
On the relation of his experience before the church in Suffield,
the brethren, on this very account, hesitated to receive him; but
the pastor, Rev. John Hastings, shrewdly remarked that it was
evident Mr. Bolles was in the way, and that this was more
important than the question when, or by what means, he got in it;
upon which they unanimously received him. He was very happy in his
connection with the church in Suffield. The members were all his
friends. He would often start from Hartford at midnight, arrive in
Suffield at early dawn, on Sabbath morning, when they were making
their fires, and surprise them by his pleasant salutation. After
breakfast and family prayers, all hands would go to church
together.

Of course, he was equally at home with the church in Hartford, and
spent much of his time in visiting, especially the poor of the
flock. He had a kind word and a ready hand for every one. One
severe winter, a fearful snow-storm had raised the roads to a
level with the tops of the fences. A certain widow Burnham lived
all alone, just on the outer edge of East Hartford. The deacon was
anxious about her; he was afraid that she might be covered with
the snow and suffering from want. He proposed to visit her; but
his friends thought it perilous to cross the meadows. But, being
light of foot, he resolved to attempt it. The weather was cold,
and the snow slightly crusted on the top. By means of this he
succeeded, with some effort, in reaching the widow’s house. As he
supposed, he found it covered with snow to the chimneys. He made
his way into the house and found the good sister without fire or
water. He cut paths to the woodpile and to the well, and assisted
her to make a fire and put on the tea-kettle. He then cut a path
to the pig-pen and supplied the wants of the hungry beast, by
which time breakfast was ready. After breakfast, he read the word
of God and prayed, and was ready to start for home. In the
meanwhile, the sun had melted the crust of snow, and, as he was
passing through the meadows, he broke through. He tried to
scramble out, but failed; he shouted, but there was no one to hear
him. The wind began to blow keenly; he did not know but he must
remain there all night and perish with cold. But he committed
himself to God, and sat down for shelter on the lee-side of his
temporary prison. He finally made a desperate effort, succeeded in
reaching the edge, and found, to his joy, that the freezing wind
had hardened the surface of the snow, which enabled him to make
his way home.

On a pleasant Sabbath morning, some seventy years ago, might be
seen a little group wending their way from Hartford, through the
green woods and meadows of the Connecticut valley, towards the
little church on Zion’s Hill. Among them was a man of small
stature, something like Zaccheus of old, of erect gait, bright eye
and agile movement. Though living eighteen miles from Suffield, he
was wont, on pleasant days, to walk the whole distance, beguiling
the way with devout meditation; or, if some younger brother chose
to accompany him, with pleasant talk about the things of the
Kingdom. This was Deacon John Bolles, brother of Rev. David
Bolles, and uncle of the late excellent Rev. Matthew Bolles, and
of Dr. Lucius Bolles so well known in connection with the cause of
foreign missions.

In the year of our Lord 1790, just about the commencement of the
French Revolution, this good brother and a few others came to the
conclusion that the time had arrived to organize a Baptist Church
in the city of Hartford. Previous to that, they had held meetings
in the court-house and in private houses. On the 5th of August,
1789, the first baptism, according to our usage, was administered
in this city. On September 7, it was resolved to hold public
services on the Sabbath in a more formal way. Accordingly, the
first meeting of this kind was held, October 18, in the
dwelling-house of John Bolles. These services were continued, and
in the ensuing season a number of persons were baptized on a
profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. On the 23d of
March, 1790, sixteen brothers and sisters were recognized as a
church of Christ, by a regularly called council, over which Elder
Hastings presided as Moderator.

When the Baptists began to hold public services, an over-zealous
member of Dr. Strong’s society (the Centre Congregational Society)
called upon him and asked him if he knew that John Bolles had
“started an opposition meeting.” “No,” said he. “When? Where?”
“Why, at the old court-house.” “Oh, yes, I know it,” the doctor
carelessly replied; “but it is not an opposition meeting. They are
Baptists, to be sure, but they preach the same doctrine that I do;
you had better go and hear them.” “Go!” said the man, “I am a
Presbyterian!” “So am I,” rejoined Dr. Strong; “but that need not
prevent us wishing them well. You had better go.” “No!” said the
man, with energy, “I shan’t go near them! Dr. Strong, a’n’t you
going to do something about it?” “What?” “Stop it, can’t you?” “My
friend,” said the doctor, “John Bolles is a good man, and will
surely go to heaven. If you and I get there, we shall meet him,
and we had better, therefore, cultivate pleasant acquaintance with
him here.”

Dr. Bushnell, many years after, paid him a sweet tribute, in his
sermon “Living to God in Small Things.” “I often hear mentioned by
the Christians of our city (Hartford) the name of a certain godly
man, who has been dead many years; and he is always spoken of with
so much respectfulness and affection that I, a stranger of another
generation, feel his power, and the sound of his name refreshes
me. That man was one who lived to God in small things. I know
this, not by any description which has thus set forth his
character, but from the very respect and homage with which he is
named. Virtually, he still lives among us, and the face of his
goodness shines upon all our Christian labors.”

Dr. Samuel Bowles, founder of the _Springfield Republican_, says in
his “Notes of the Bowles Family:” “Deacon John Bolles of Hartford,
one of the most godly men that ever lived, a descendant of Thomas
Bolles, was a contemporary and neighbor of my father, and used to
call him ‘cousin Bowles.’”

Judge David Bolles, son of the Rev. David Bolles before named, was
prominent for many years as an active advocate of religious freedom.
We quote the following historical statement concerning him:—

David Bolles, Jr., first child of Rev. David and Susannah Bolles,
was born in Ashford, Ct., September 26, 1765, and died there May
22, 1830. He first studied and practised medicine, and afterwards
law. At the time of his death he was judge of the Windham County
Court. He received the honorary degree of A.M. from Brown
University in 1819. He was a Methodist in religion, and to his
long continued and zealous services, as advocate of “the Baptist
Petition,” before successive legislatures, was Connecticut largely
indebted for the full establishment of religious liberty in 1818.

He was the author of the famous “Baptist Petition” above referred
to, the original copy of which, written by his own hand, was shown
to the author by his nephew, Gen. John A. Bolles.

Judge David Bolles was extensively known throughout the State as the
earnest advocate of the liberal movement. The following anecdote was
told the writer by one who sat at a dinner with him. Calvin Goddard,
the late distinguished lawyer of Norwich, then a young man, said to
Judge Bolles on the occasion, “You will blow your Baptist ram’s horn
until the walls of Jericho fall.”

Rev. Augustus Bolles, another brother of Judge Bolles, a Baptist
preacher, many years a resident of Hartford and for some time
associated with the _Christian Secretary_ published there, referring
to the great controversy for equal religious rights in the State of
Connecticut, said to the writer, more than fifty years ago, “The
Bolleses were perfect Bonapartes in that contest.” Where was Mr.
Field then? Perhaps he wasn’t born.

That ably conducted paper, the _Hartford Times_, was established in
1817, by Frederick D. Bolles, a descendant of John Bolles, for the
express purpose of meeting this question. From the first number of
said paper, we copy the following:—

Anxious to make the _Times_ as useful and worthy of public
patronage as possible, the subscriber has associated himself with
John M. Niles, Esq., a young gentleman of talent. The business
will be conducted under the firm of F. D. Bolles & Co., and they
hope, through their joint exertions, to render the paper
acceptable to its readers.

F. D. BOLLES.

The subject of religious rights was the main topic of discussion in
this paper. A subsequent number, August 12, 1817, has a long article
signed, “Roger Williams.” It is headed, “An Inquiry Whether the
Several Denominations of Christians in the States Enjoy Equal Civil
and Religious Privileges.”

From the “History of Hartford County,” we quote the following:—

The _Hartford Times_ was started at the beginning of the year
1817. Its publisher was Frederick D. Bolles, a practical printer,
and at that time a young man full of confidence and enthusiasm in
his journal and his cause. That cause was, in the party terms of
the day, “TOLERATION.” First, and paramount, of the objects of the
Tolerationists was to secure the adoption of a new Constitution
for Connecticut. Under the ancient and loose organic law then in
force, people of all forms and shades of religious belief were
obliged to pay tribute to the established church. Such a state of
things permitted no personal liberty, no individual election in
the vital matter of a man’s religion; and it naturally created a
revolt. The cry of “Toleration” arose. The Federalists met the
argument with ridicule. The “Democratic Republicans,” of the
Jefferson fold, were the chief users of the Toleration cry, and
the _Hartford Times_ was established on that issue, and in support
of the movement for a new and more tolerant Constitution. It
proved to be a lively year in party politics. The toleration issue
became the engrossing theme. The _Times_ had as associate editor,
John M. Niles, then a young and but little known lawyer from
Poquonock, who subsequently rose to a national reputation in the
Senate at Washington. It dealt the Federalists some powerful
blows, and enlisted in the cause a number of men of ability, who,
but for the peculiar issue presented—one of religious
freedom—never would have entered into party politics. Among them
were prominent men of other denominations than the orthodox
Congregationalists; no wonder; they were struggling for life.
There was a good deal of public speaking; circulars and pamphlets
were handed from neighbor to neighbor; the “campaign” was, in
short, a sharp and bitter one, and the main issue was hotly
contested. The excitement was intense. When it began to appear
that the Toleration cause was stronger than the Federalists had
supposed, there arose a fresh feeling of horrified apprehension,
much akin to that which, seventeen years before, had led hundreds
of good people in Connecticut, when they heard of the election of
the “Infidel Jefferson” to the Presidency, to hide their
Bibles—many of them in hay-mows—under the conviction that that
evident instrument of the Evil One would seek out and destroy
every obtainable copy of the Bible in the land.

The election came on in the spring of 1818, and the Federal party
in Connecticut found itself actually overthrown. It was a thing
unheard of, not to be believed by good Christians. Lyman Beecher,
in his Litchfield pulpit and family prayers, as one out of
numerous cases, poured out the bitterness of his heart in
declarations that everything was lost and the days of darkness had
come.

Was not the soul of John Rogers marching on?

In fact, it proved to be the day of the new Constitution—the
existing law of 1818—and under its more tolerant influence other
churches rapidly arose; the Episcopalians, the Baptists, and the
Methodists all feeling their indebtedness to the party of
Toleration.

The _Times_, successful in the main object of its beginning, after
witnessing this peaceful political revolution, continued, with
several changes of proprietors. It was about sixty years ago that
the paper became the property of Bowles and Francis, as its
publishing firm; the Bowles being Samuel Bowles, the founder, many
years later, of the _Springfield Republican_, whose son, the late
Samuel Bowles, built up that well-known journal to a high degree
of prosperity.

Mrs. Watson, of East Windsor Hill, daughter of Frederick D. Bolles,
the founder of the _Hartford Times_, who courteously furnished us
with the above quotations, also sent us a paper containing the
following tribute to John M. Niles, early associated with her father
in the publication of the _Times_.

Mr. Niles, then a young man, who perhaps had not dreamed at that
time of becoming a Senator of the United States and of making
speeches in the Senate Chamber, which, however dry in manner, were
to be complimented by Mr. Calhoun as being the most interesting
and instructive speeches he was accustomed to hear in the
Senate—this then unknown young man was one of the editors. The
_Times_ was established on the motto of “Toleration”—the severance
of church from state—the exemption of men from paying taxes to a
particular church if they did not agree with that church in their
consciences. The reform aimed at the establishment of a more
liberal rule in Connecticut; a rule which would let Baptists,
Methodists, and other denominations rise and grow, as well as the
one old dominant and domineering church that had so long reigned,
and with which party federalism had become so incorporated as to
be looked upon practically as part of its creed and substance. The
cause advocated by the _Times_ triumphed; the constitution framed
in 1818 established a new order of things. Both Mr. Bolles and Mr.
Niles have passed out of the life of earth; but the work which was
accomplished by the agitation of the “Toleration” question, sixty
years ago, has remained in Connecticut and grown. The old
intolerant influence also is not dead; its spirit remains, but its
old power for intolerant rule has passed away.

A terrible weight of prejudice rested upon the Rogerenes who first
planted that seed in Connecticut, whose outshoot, ingrafted into the
constitution of every State in the Union, has become a great tree of
religious liberty spreading its branches over all the land, under
the shadow of which not only we but immigrants from every clime sit
with delight.

This weight of superstition and intolerance was not wholly removed
when Mr. Field wrote of the Rogerenes, which is the only excuse we
can offer for the statements made by him in his “Discourse Delivered
on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the First Church of Christ, in
New London, October 19, 1870.” Compared, however, with what John
Rogers and his early followers endured at the hands of a tyrannical,
bigoted, blinded church, and the falsehoods and scoffs which
ecclesiastical historians have promulgated, Mr. Field’s utterances
are lighter than a feather.

CHAPTER VII.

We had not intended to make further reply (see Chapter II) to Mr.
McEwen’s Half-Century Sermon; but lest our silence should be
construed by some as implying an inability to do so, we turn to it
again.

“The elder Gov. Griswold,” he says, “acted at one time as
prosecuting attorney against the Rogerenes.” If this was so, he was
prosecuting his somewhat near relatives, so far as the descendants
of John Rogers, 2d, were concerned, Henry Wolcott and Matthew
Griswold, Sr., being their common ancestors.

Is it not strange that ministers of religion should delight in
showing the powers of this world to be their support, as if to add
honor and respectability to the church? “Who is she that”—without
secular pomp—“looketh forth as the morning; fair as the moon, clear
as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?”

Mr. McEwen proceeds, “I have not yet spoken of scourging, nor of the
effect of it; which, in the consummation of judgments, actually
befell these crusaders against idolatry,” referring to the
“outbreak” of 1764-6.

Neither does Mr. McEwen speak of fines, imprisonments, setting in
stocks, and other barbarous cruelties practised upon John Rogers and
his followers; but he adds: “What the law could not do, in that it
was weak, lynching did.” We wonder that Mr. McEwen should have made
this admission; but we honor him for it, although he gives away his
cause. “Lynching did.” Here is an acknowledgment that the church and
government of that day, regardless even of their own laws, resolved
themselves into a mob.

Says Mr. McEwen:—

Historical fidelity constrains me, though with reluctance and
sadness, to say that our forefathers of this congregation, in the
extremity of their embarrassment, took the disturbers of public
worship out, tied them to trees, and permitted the boys to give
them a severe whipping with switches taken from the prim bush.

This treatment was made more disgraceful from the fact, admitted by
Mr. McEwen, that the Rogerenes, “in common with Quakers, held the
doctrine of non-resistance to violence from men,” as an example of
which, he says:—

A constable often took out a lusty man and with a twine tied him
to a tree. He was studious not to break the ligature; but stood,
conscientiously, until the close of divine service, when he was
officially released.

He continues:—

The affirmation of the Rogerenes is that the shrub has never
vegetated in this town since that irreligious and cruel use of
it.[18] It is to be feared that the moral effect upon the boys was
worse than the blasting effect upon the prim bush.

-----

Footnote 18:

The fact that prim still grows abundantly upon the farm once owned
and occupied by John Rogers, may be an exception worthy of note.

-----

Mr. McEwen goes on to say, as palliating their conduct: “But our
fathers had not the Sabbath School.”

Was the preaching of the gospel a less potent influence than the
Sabbath School? They had Moses and the prophets and the teachings of
Christ. The persecutors of the Christians in all former ages had not
the Sabbath School; but who ever before offered this excuse in their
behalf? And even this apology he does not extend to the Rogerenes;
but holds them to the strictest account, notwithstanding that they
also had not the Sabbath School.

“The Rogerenes,” he adds, “have dwindled to insignificance.”

Should he not know that the work of these reformers is accomplished?
The principles for which they contended have become universal; their
distinctive existence is no longer needed. The citadel of religious
bigotry which they assailed has been demolished. While the dark
night of superstition and intolerance overspread the land, the
Rogerenes, like stars and constellations, pierced the gloom. Leo and
the Great Bear shone in the heavens; but when the sun arose they
made obeisance and retired. The trumpet of Luther is not now blown
in Protestant churches. The Anti-Slavery Society, once potent, has
ceased to exist; slavery is abolished. Would Mr. McEwen doom the
Rogerenes to endless labor, like Sisyphus? He rolled up the stone to
have it roll back again; they helped to roll the stone to the top of
the mountain, the headstone, brought forth with shoutings, to rest
there forever.

Mr. McEwen says: “A small remnant of their posterity, almost
unknown, exists in an adjacent town, with hardly a relic of their
earth-born religion. ‘A small remnant’ will be noted hereafter.”

“Earth-born religion!” In regard to doctrinal points in religion
they differed not from the Congregational church. Mr. Field himself
said, in the discourse from which we have before quoted, “In their
opinions concerning the doctrines of religion generally they
coincided with other Christians, and they did not abandon, as do the
Quakers, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” And Miss
Caulkins, in her history, says that John Rogers was strenuously
orthodox in his religious views, as all his writings clearly show.
The Rogerenes baptized by immersion, it is true, and much of their
suffering was on that account. Benedict, in his Church History,
speaks of them as “Rogerene Baptists.” This feature of their belief,
ancient though it may be, against which the Congregational church a
century or two ago set itself in such violent opposition, has now
become current and popular. With the progress of religious freedom
and of gospel truth, the Rogerenes have long since affiliated with
other denominations and are as one with them. We shall, presently,
show to the reader that prominent ministers, in different
denominations, have been of Rogerene descent.

“But why,” says Mr. McEwen, “you may be ready to ask, rake from
oblivion a sect devised for nothing but to destroy the religion of
the gospel and destined to vanish away?”[19]

-----

Footnote 19:

Apparently, Mr. McEwen judged the Puritan Sabbath to have been one
and the same with the “religion of the gospel.”

-----

In view of what we have already said and shown, we are now somewhat
at a loss which of Solomon’s rules to adopt (see Proverbs xxvi, 4
and 5), and therefore deem it the part of wisdom to make no answer
at all. Had Mr. McEwen attempted to rear a monument to his own
ignorance, he could not have succeeded better than by uttering the
words above quoted.

“Our answer is,” he continues, “to confirm our faith in the Almighty
Saviour, who said, ‘Every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not
planted shall be rooted up.’”

We are glad that our faith needs no such confirmation. Said the
apostle, “We know whom we have believed.” But what have the ages
preceding the Rogerene movement not lost, who lived and passed away
before this new means of confirming the truth of the gospel was
discovered!

“Shall be rooted up.” If he refers to the principles advocated
by the Rogerenes, to the seed of equal religious rights sown by
them, these are deeper rooted in the hearts, consciences and
understandings of men to-day than ever before at any period in
the world’s history.

To quote further from Mr. McEwen’s discourse:

“Men and women of low minds, in regions of darkness, now invent
religions.”

An insinuation, perhaps, that the Rogerenes were “men and women of
low minds.” They did not invent a new religion, as we have fully
shown, and, for intelligence, for wealth, for moral rectitude, were
not behind others, as will further appear.

Mr. McEwen spoke of “a small remnant of their posterity, almost
unknown, in a neighboring town,” seeming to intimate, perhaps
unintentionally, that all, or nearly all, “their posterity” were in
that “town” and “almost unknown.”

We will mention some of their numerous posterity outside of this
“neighboring town,” where in fact are and have been comparatively
few of their descendants, showing first and chiefly how numerous and
well known are descendants of James Rogers, Sr., and his son John
Rogers, founders of this sect, in the town in which Mr. McEwen
resided and where he delivered this sermon.

First, we will mention Miss Frances Manwaring Caulkins, of pleasant
memory, author of “The History of New London,” and also Pamela, her
amiable sister, for many years an acceptable teacher in this city.
They were descendants of James Rogers, Sr., as was also their
brother, Henry P. Haven, so well known in religious and commercial
circles, to whose munificent gift, and that of his daughter, Mrs.
Anna Perkins, we are indebted for our Public Library, a noble
monument to their memory. The mother of Henry P. Haven and the
Misses Caulkins was a sister of Christopher Manwaring, formerly a
well-known citizen of this town, whose father, Robert Manwaring,
married Elizabeth Rogers, daughter of James^4. Miss Caulkins was
also of Rogerene descent on her father’s side, in the line of
Joseph, son of James, Sr.

The late Dr. Robert A. Manwaring, son of the above Christopher
Manwaring, was, by both his parents, honored by Rogers descent, his
mother being daughter of Dr. Simon Wolcott, of Windsor, who married
Lucy Rogers a descendant of James^2 and settled in this place.

Capt. Richard Law also married a daughter of Dr. Simon Wolcott and
Lucy Rogers; his descendants include the later branches of the Chew
family, also the children of William C. Crump and of Horace Coit.

J. N. Harris, one of New London’s most enterprising citizens, is a
descendant of James Rogers, Sr.

Ex-Lieut.-Gov. F. B. Loomis was a descendant in the same line, as
was the eminent Professor of Astronomy, the late Elias Loomis, of
Yale College, and also his brother, Dr. Loomis, of New York.

Rev. Nehemiah Dodge, formerly so well known in New London as the
talented minister of the First Baptist Church, who afterwards
adopted the doctrines of Universalism, was a descendant of James
Rogers; as, of course, was his brother, Israel Dodge, father of
Senator Henry Dodge of Wisconsin and grandfather of Senator Augustus
C. Dodge, first governor of the Territory of Iowa, and afterwards
minister to Spain. Rev. Nehemiah was remarkable for his wit and
quickness of repartee, and of him many anecdotes might be told. One
may suffice, as showing his abundant humor.

As Mr. Dodge was driving his horse and sleigh through a narrow
passage, high banks of snow on both sides, he was approached by a
person, also in a sleigh, coming in the opposite direction. Mr.
Dodge, who was a large, stalwart man, arose, and, lifting his whip
loftily, said, “Turn out, you rascal, or I’ll serve you as I did the
last man I met.” The poor fellow, his horses floundering in the
snow, replied, “How did you serve the last man you met?” “I turned
out for him,” was Mr. Dodge’s jovial reply, as he drove past.

The wife of Dr. Nathaniel Perkins and her sister, Miss Jane
Richards, may be mentioned as of Rogers ancestry.

The children of the late Thomas Fitch, one of New London’s most
enterprising citizens, are descendants of James Rogers, in the line
of his daughter, Bathsheba Smith, their mother being sister of the
famous whaling captains of this place, Robert Smith and Parker
Smith, also James Smith, the popular captain of the Manhansett.

The descendants of Henry Deshon, one of the early residents of New
London, are doubly of Rogers ancestry, being descendants of John
Rogers and also of his sister Bathsheba, by marriage of daughter of
latter to John Rogers, 2d. The late Capt. John Deshon, the children
of B. B. Thurston, and also Augustus Brandagee, on his mother’s
side, are in this line of descent.

John Bishop, government contractor, builder and first proprietor of
the Pequot House, Charles, Henry and Gilbert Bishop, of the
enterprising firm of Bishop Bros., and the late Joseph B. Congdon
may be named as descendants of John Rogers.

The children of Ex-Gov. T. M. Waller and the children of Frank
Chappell are descendants of John Rogers, in the Bishop line.

The children of Alfred Chappell are descendants of John Bolles, in
the Turner line.[20]

-----

Footnote 20:

Thomas Turner came to New London, as a young man, about 1721. He
married Patience, daughter of John Bolles, in 1727. She died
December 18, 1769, aged sixty-one. After her death he married Mary
(_née_ Harris), widow of John Waterhouse 2d, and after her death
he married Isabel Whitney. His first marriage was by the regular
form common with the New London Rogerenes; his second and third
marriages were by the Quaker form prevalent in Quakertown at that
date, and were recorded by Joseph Bolles, clerk of the Rogerene
Society. See Chapter XIV. Thomas Turner lived in Montville. He
died in 1791, aged ninety-two.

-----

Peter C. Turner, for some time cashier of the whaling bank in New
London, and afterwards of the First National Bank, was a descendant
of John Bolles; as are also, in the same line, the Weavers and
Newcombs of the later generations.

Elisha and Frank Palmer, of New London, large manufacturers at
Montville, Fitchville, etc., are descendants of James Rogers and of
John Bolles, as are also Reuben and Tyler Palmer, of New London,
manufacturers. Mr. George S. Palmer of Norwich is of the same line.

The late enterprising brothers, President and George Rogers, of New
London, were descendants of James Rogers, 2d, and of John Rogers.

The late Mrs. Marvin, of New London, daughter of Job Taber, was a
descendant of John Rogers and John Bolles, by marriage of a son of
the latter (Ebenezer) with a daughter of John Rogers, 2d.

William Bolles (brother of the writer) was for many years engaged in
the printing, publishing and book-selling business in New London. He
was author and compiler of several books, among which was Bolle’s
“Phonographic and Pronouncing Dictionary,” royal octavo, admitted to
be the best dictionary in this country previous to Webster’s
Unabridged. From the “History of New London County” we quote the
following:—

It is a fact worthy of notice, as displaying the originality and
versatility of New England thought and enterprise, that the paper
mill at Bolle’s Cove, a few miles out of New London, was erected
by William Bolles, who there made the paper for his dictionary,
which was printed and bound by the concern of which he was senior
partner.

William Bolles was a foremost abolitionist, when to speak against
slavery was to call down ridicule and opposition of a very serious
nature. William Bolles was a descendant of John Rogers and John
Bolles, who, one hundred and fifty years before, tenaciously
maintained the equal right of all to religious liberty.

Joshua Bolles, brother of above, was a prominent business man of New
London, being not only a partner in the book publishing firm and
bookstore, but also concerned in banking and brokerage. Of his
transactions as a broker, he was able to say that he never sold
stock which he considered unsafe to any man without fully stating to
the applicant his own opinion of the same, and that even after such
warning, he had never sold such stock unless fully confident that
the would-be purchaser was able to lose the amount thus risked.

Peter Strickland, Consul to Goree-dakir, Senegal, conspicuous for
fidelity in discharging the duties of that office, which he has held
for twenty years, and equally honored as a captain sailing between
Boston and foreign ports, is a descendant of John Rogers and James
Rogers, 2d. His skill in seamanship and fertility of resource when
his vessel was dismantled in a gale, and which he brought safely
into Boston, though it might lawfully have been abandoned, won him
great praise and a gold medal from the underwriters whose interests
he had so faithfully served.

Among lawyers of John Bolles descent: David Bolles, whose labors
were so efficient in the defence of religious liberty more than half
a century ago, to which we have before referred; John A. Bolles (son
of Rev. Matthew Bolles), first editor of the _Boston Daily Journal_,
and for many years a prominent lawyer in that city. He received the
degree of LL.D. from Brown University, and was Secretary of State of
Massachusetts. He was author of the prize essay on a Congress of
Nations, published by the American Peace Society, also of many
magazine articles. He was a member of Gen. John A. Dix’s staff
during the Civil War, and afterwards Judge Advocate General and
solicitor of the Navy Department.[21] His son, Frank Bolles, was a
lawyer, although better known as Secretary of Harvard College. To
his superior qualities of mind and heart no words of ours can do
justice. He was the author of works illustrative of nature, among
which are “The Land of the Lingering Snow” and “Back of Beaucamp
Water.” Of his recent death, the _Boston Journal_ said: “The birds
and flowers have lost their best historian.” The following lines to
his memory were written by George B. Bancroft:—

All the world loves a lover,
Proclaims our poet seer.
So, Nature’s sweet interpreter—
We hold thy memory dear.
And all the world, with myriad tongues,
Rejoices to proclaim,
With insight true, and clear as thine,
Thy fair and spotless fame,
Which lifted high on mighty pens
On every side is heard,
Wherever sounds an insect note
Or carol of a bird.
On opening leaf of tree and plant
He who has eyes may see
The imprint of the secrets rare
It whispered unto thee.
Thy life, so short, compared with ours,
Seems very full and long,
Crowned with the mystic harmony
Of wild melodious song.
The gentle river, drifting slow,
Its verdant banks between,
Reflects the pines that bear thy name
And keeps them ever green.

-----

Footnote 21:

“Secretary Bolles” is mentioned in the _Biglow Papers_. He wrote
an “Essay on Usury and Usury Laws,” published by the Boston
Chamber of Commerce, which led to the suspension of usury laws on
short bills of exchange.

-----

H. Eugene Bolles (son of William Bolles mentioned above), now an
active lawyer in Boston, of large practice, is a descendant of John
Rogers and John Bolles.

There are seven lawyers of the present date in New London who are
descendants of John Rogers, viz., Hon. Augustus Brandagee, Frank
Brandagee, Tracy Waller and brothers, Abel Tanner and the writer.
There are three others who are descended from James Rogers, Sr., in
other lines, viz., Clayton B. Smith, W. F. M. Rogers and Richard
Crump.

Benjamin Thurston, a distinguished lawyer in Providence, and his
brother, also a lawyer, are descendants of John Rogers.

We will now speak of ministers, and first of Rev. Peter Rogers,
descendant of James Rogers, 2d, and John Rogers, 2d, his father
being a grandson of the former and his mother a granddaughter of the
latter. We give the following extract from an obituary notice[22] of
this early New England Baptist minister.

Elder Peter Rogers was born in New London, Conn., June 23, 1754,
and died at Waterloo, Munroe Co., Illinois, Nov. 4, 1849, at the
age of 95 years. His father was a seafaring man and commanded a
vessel; his mother was a devout, praying woman and made a lasting
impression upon his character. Yet he grew up worldly and
thoughtless, and at an early period in the Revolutionary War,
enlisted in the army as a musician and became attached to the
corps denominated “Washington’s Life Guards.” After three year’s
service in the army, he was honorably discharged and then
commanded a government vessel, in which he performed valiant deeds
and took three prizes from the enemy.

His conviction of sin was instrumentally produced by the life of
faith and happy death of his first wife (we think she lived to
rejoice in his conversion, but died soon after) and remembrance of
the prayers and instruction of his mother. He was baptized by Eld.
Amos Crandall and soon began to “improve his gift,” as the Baptist
phrase was in early times. In 1790, he was ordained by Elder Zadoc
Darrow, Sr., Jason Lee and Christopher Palmer. His ministry was
distinguished by revivals.

-----

Footnote 22:

Obituary Notice of Elder Peter Rogers, by Rev. J. M. Peck, D.D.,
of Illinois. Published in the Minutes of the Pastoral Union for
1850.

-----

For a number of years, Eld. Rogers was a retailing merchant, while
his gratuitous labors were abundant as an evangelist and pastor.

He lived and preached in New London, Killingly and Hampton, in
Connecticut, in Leicester, Mass., and Swanzey, N. Ham., from 1789
to 1828, when he removed to Munroe County, Illinois.

For a few years, he was partially sustained as a pastor; but for a
large part of sixty years he performed the warfare at his own
charges, as did nearly all the Baptist ministers of New England in
that day. Several hundred were converted and baptized under his
ministry, a much larger number, in that day and in that part of
the country, than by other Baptist ministers.

He was past threescore and ten when he came to Illinois, yet for a
number of years he labored much in the gospel and was highly
esteemed and beloved by all his brethren.

He delighted in Christian society, and, like a memorable patriarch
of a former age, his presence, counsel and kindness were welcome
in all our circles. “He fell like a shock of corn fully ripe in
its season,” strong in faith, full of hope, and abundant in joy
and consolation.

Dr. Lucius Bolles (Rev., D.D., and S.T.D.) was a descendant of John
Bolles. He was for more than twenty-two years pastor of the First
Baptist Church in Salem, Mass., and for many years Secretary of the
American Baptist Board of Foreign Missions and Fellow of Brown
University. Of him it is said, “No man of his denomination occupied
a more prominent position, or exercised an influence more strong and
universal.”

James A. Bolles, D.D., Episcopalian, for many years pastor of the
Church of the Advent, Boston, was a descendant of John Bolles. He
was author of several pamphlets and books on church matters.

Edwin C. Bolles, D.D., a talented preacher of New York City (Church
of the Eternal Hope), whose sermons are embellished more with the
precepts of the Bible than with sectarian tenets, is a descendant of
John Bolles.

Four ministers born in New London during the present century were
descendants of John Rogers, among them Rev. John Brandagee and
Father Deshon of good fame.

Rev. John Middleton was a descendant of James Rogers, 2d.

Rev. Charles H. Peck, of Bennington, Vt., is a descendant of James
Rogers, 2d. He is the son of Mrs. E. P. Peck, of New London,
daughter of our late esteemed fellow-townsman, Daniel Rogers, to
whose interest in genealogical researches many besides ourselves are
indebted for information concerning early inhabitants of New London.

As to physicians of Rogerene descent, we recall very few at time of
this writing. Their ancestors largely discarded medicines, and this
sentiment may have been handed down. But we will mention William P.
Bolles, M.D., of Boston, brother of Lawyer H. E. Bolles above
mentioned, who by his skill in surgery and medical practice, and
also by literary work in the same lines, has brought honor to
himself and his profession.

The writer will here relate a conversation which was held with a
prominent physician of the present day.

“If you had lived,” said we, “two hundred years ago, would you have
chosen the attendance of a physician or the good care of friends in
sickness?”

“I would have preferred the good care of friends,” was the reply.
“The science of medicine was not so well understood then as at the
present day.”

A tacit acknowledgment that the Rogerenes were right, although the
doctor knew not the purpose for which the question was asked.
Certain it is that much less medicine is administered now than
formerly, and statistics show that longevity has increased.

Mr. McEwen has not failed to ridicule the belief of the Rogerenes
concerning the non-use of medicine, and perhaps the best reply is
given by Mrs. Caulkins, when she says of John Rogers, 2d, as before
quoted, “Notwithstanding his long testimony and his many weary
trials and imprisonments, he reared to maturity a family of eighteen
children, most of them, like their parents, sturdy Rogerenes.”

And of John Bolles in this connection we have only to say, he had
fifteen children, the average age reached by whom was more than
seventy-six years. He himself lived to be ninety.

We are not disposed to deny the fact that the Rogerenes held the
sentiments ascribed to them on this subject, and, not to spoil a
joke for relation’s sake, we will relate an anecdote which was told
us by the late Edward Prentice, with much glee on his part.

Joshua Bolles, youngest son of John Bolles (and grandfather of the
writer), then living on Bolles Hill, was badly injured by a
ferocious animal on his place, and brought to the house insensible.
Mr. Frink, his nearest neighbor, immediately sent for Dr. Wolcott,
who came to his assistance. When Mr. Bolles recovered consciousness,
he saw Dr. Wolcott in the room and said to Mr. Frink, who was
standing near him, “What’s Wolcott here for?” Mr. Frink replied, “I
sent for him; if I had not, you would have been dead by this time.”
“Then you should have let me die!” was Mr. Bolle’s answer. Joshua
Bolles lived to be eighty-three years of age; only one of his
fifteen children died in childhood. Several lived to be eighty and
upwards, and all but one of the others to past middle age.

Since we have introduced Joshua Bolles, we will make the reader
acquainted with a few more of his descendants.

Andrew W. Phillips, the distinguished Professor of Mathematics in
Yale College, is a descendant of Joshua Bolles; as are also Rev.
Joshua Bolles Garritt, Professor of Greek and Latin in Hanover
College, Indiana, his son, Joshua Garritt, missionary in China, and
his daughter, Mrs. Coulter, well known in missionary and
philanthropic circles, wife of John M. Coulter, formerly Professor
of Natural Sciences in Wabash College, and now President of the
Indiana State University.[23]

-----

Footnote 23:

Later a professor in Chicago University.

-----

Of professors in the Rogers line, we will mention Hamilton Smith,
son of Anson Smith, formerly of New London. He early gave his
attention to telescopic observations, and is a well-known professor
of astronomy in Hobart College, N.Y. He is a descendant of John
Rogers.

William Augustus Rogers, a descendant of James Rogers, 2d, also
deserves honorable notice. He is a graduate of Brown University. He
was Professor of Mathematics and Industrial Mechanics at Alfred
University, N.Y., where he secured the building of an observatory
which he equipped at his own expense. Afterwards, he was for fifteen
years Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Harvard College. In 1880,
he received from Yale College the honorary degree of A.M., in
recognition of his services to astronomy; was elected member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences and Fellow of the Royal
Microscopical Society, London; and is now (1895) a professor in
Colby University, Maine.

Prof. Nathaniel Britton, of Columbia College, New York, Professor of
Botany, is a grandson of David S. Turner, of New London, a
descendant of John Bolles. David Turner, son of the latter, is a
prominent journalist in Florence, Italy.

Of wealthy merchants and brokers of Rogerene descent in the Rogers
and Bolles line there have been and still are several millionaires.

William Bolles, of Hartford, recently deceased, whose estate was
valued at more than a million, was a grandson of Joshua Bolles.

As an example of sterling business integrity we will mention Matthew
Bolles, of Boston, well known in commercial circles at home and
abroad, a descendant of John Bolles.

Of artists, we will name John W. Bolles, of Newark, N.J.,
Miss Amelia M. Watson and Miss Edith S. Watson, of Windsor,
granddaughters of Frederick D. Bolles, also Miss Thurston, of
Providence, formerly of New London, and daughter of Hon. B. B.
Thurston, a descendant of John Rogers.

A young architect, of high promise and achievement, should not be
overlooked, Charles Urbane Thrall, of the Perth Amboy Terra Cotta
Works. He is grandson of Mrs. Urbane Haven, of New London, who is
doubly of John Rogers descent.[24]

-----

Footnote 24:

This young man reproduced, from a description given him by his
grandmother, Mrs. Haven, the old John Rogers house, near which
Mrs. Haven lived in her youth, and where she used to visit her
aunt Elizabeth Rogers. (See the Genealogy entitled “James Rogers
and His Descendants,” for the drawing by Mr. Thrall.)

Of editors and authors: Frederick D. Bolles, founder and first
editor of the _Hartford Times_, a descendant of John Bolles.

Joshua A. Bolles, son of the late Joshua Bolles of New London
(before mentioned), editor and proprietor of the _New Milford
Gazette_, a descendant of John Rogers and John Bolles.

John McGinley, editor of the _New London Day_, is a descendant of
John Bolles.

Anna Bolles Williams, author of a number of popular works, is a
descendant of John Rogers and John Bolles.

Mrs. Mary L. Bolles Branch (daughter of the writer), author of many
acceptable articles for periodicals, both in prose and verse, is a
descendant of John Rogers and John Bolles.[25]

-----

Footnote 25:

Her daughter, Anna Hempstead Branch, is now well known as one of
our young poets.

Among teachers, we must not fail to mention Mrs. Marion Hempstead
Lillie, so long the efficient and popular Principal of the Coit
Street School, also a prominent member of the L. S. Chapter of the
D. A. R. and other social and literary circles, in which her genial
manners and brilliant conversational powers have won her many
friends and admirers. She is a descendant of John Rogers, also of
Bathsheba Rogers.

Miss Jennie Turner, so favorably known, and for many years Assistant
Principal of the Young Ladie’s Institute of New London, is a
descendant of John Bolles.

The last four were fellow-students at the Young Ladie’s Academy of
New London, under the instruction of Mr. Amos Perry, afterwards
consul to Tunis, and now (1894) Secretary of the Rhode Island
Historical Society. They were members of an advanced class formed by
him, of which, as the names are now recalled, we discover that
nearly all were of Rogerene descent, viz.: John Bolles, John Rogers,
or both.

Goodness should not less receive its meed of praise. We present in
this place the name of one who from childhood was called to display
sweet ministries in all the walks of life, and by gentlest influence
to lead the hearts of others to that which is purest and best. We
speak of our own sister, Delight Rogers Bolles, admired and loved by
all, and whose influence ceases not to be felt at the present day.

When about twenty years of age, she listened to a discourse
delivered by a preacher of some eminence, which was praised by all
who heard it. After returning home, for her own benefit and that
of others, she wrote down the sermon as nearly as possible as it
was delivered, which was read by many. Fifty years afterwards, Mr.
Charles Johnson, President of the Norwich Bank, formerly a
resident of the town of Griswold, in which she resided at the
time, spoke of it to us with fresh admiration, saying, “Every word
of the sermon was written to a dot.” Afterwards she married and
lived in Hampton for several years, where her excellence of
character won for her hosts of friends. Although a Baptist by
profession, she uniformly partook of the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper with the Congregational Church on Hampton Hill, no Baptist
meeting being within several miles of that place, for which she
received no censure from the church to which she belonged, to
their praise be it spoken. Goodness and love overshadowed all
distinction. We should remember that the robe of Christ was
seamless. Having so beautifully served her day and generation, she
still lives, though her obsequies were celebrated at the
Congregational church at Hampton seventy years ago. We never heard
an unpleasant word spoken to or by the subject of this memoir. She
kept a diary. When eleven years of age, we cast a glance upon one
of its pages and read these words: “What shall I do to glorify
Thee this day?” This awakened in me a little surprise at the time,
wondering what a person in so small a sphere could do to glorify
the great God of the universe. But we have long since found that
the smallest offerings are acceptable to Him who makes his abode
with the humble and the contrite.

The list of persons of Rogerene descent might be much enlarged, even
within the limits of New London. Outside of this city, it might be
almost indefinitely extended. But we have here given enough, we
think, to show that Mr. McEwen’s words, “a small remnant,” were not
well chosen.

It is surprising to note how many of the dwellers on State Street,
in New London, have been, and are, of Rogerene descent. Even the
agent from Washington employed by the government to select a lot on
that street for the new postoffice, and other public uses, was a
descendant of John Rogers.

Instead of a “small remnant,” the words of Scripture would be much
more appropriate:—

“There shall be a handful of corn in the earth, on the top of the
mountain, and the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon.”

Here the writer may be indulged in a little pleasantry, and hopes
the reader will not regard it as ungermane to the subject.

As we throw our searchlights upon the past, we are pleased to note
that the lot on which the First Congregational Church now stands was
formerly owned by Stephen Bolles (grandson of John Bolles) and then
called Bolles Hill.[26] It was purchased from him in the year 1786,
by “The First Church of Christ,” and a meeting-house built thereon;
Stephen Bolles contributing one-third of the price of the lot
towards its erection. At and after this period, it would seem that
the church was more lenient toward the Rogerenes; although they were
not permitted to enter into full enjoyment of equal religious
liberty until 1818, when the New Constitution spread its broad ægis
over all alike, to the consummation of which glorious end, the
descendants of the pioneers in the Rogers movement acted such an
efficient part.

Thus, the First Congregational Church, leaving the spot where had
been enacted so much injustice towards the dissenters, planted
itself on Bolles Hill, where the fresh breezes of liberty seemed to
give it a higher and a purer life, reminding us of the old saying,
“If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet will go to the
mountain.”

-----

Footnote 26:

Not to be confounded with Bolles Hill where Joshua Bolles resided,
which is a mile and a half from above location.

A fine granite structure now stands upon the old hill. May all its
future utterances be worthy of its foundation. Long may it live to
make the _amende honorable_, till the brightness of its future glory
shall hide the shadows of the past. None will be more ready to
publish its praises than the numerous posterity of the persecuted
Rogerenes, remembering the motto, “To err is human, to forgive
divine.”

We will close this chapter with a poem by Mary L. Bolles Branch, one
of her earlier productions which has been widely circulated in this
and other countries. Is not the same oftentimes true of character;
hidden long in obscurity under masses of prejudice and scorn, yet
destined, some day, to be presented, in all its lines of beauty, to
the gaze of men?

THE PETRIFIED FERN.

In a valley, centuries ago,
Grew a little fern-leaf, green and slender,
Veining delicate and fibres tender,
Waving when the wind crept down so low.
Rushes tall and moss and grass grew round it,
Playful sunbeams darted in and found it,
Drops of dew stole down by night and crowned it;
But no foot of man e’er trod that way;
Earth was young and keeping holiday.

Monster fishes swam the silent main,
Stately forests waved their giant branches,
Mountains hurled their snowy avalanches,
Mammoth creatures stalked across the plain;
Nature revelled in grand mysteries,
But the little fern was not of these,
Did not number with the hills and trees,
Only grew and waved its wild, sweet way.
No one came to note it, day by day.

Earth one time put on a frolic mood,
Heaved the rocks and changed the mighty motion
Of the deep, strong currents of the ocean;
Moved the plain and shook the haughty wood;
Crushed the little fern in soft, moist clay—
Covered it, and hid it safe away.
O the long, long centuries since that day!
O the changes! O life’s bitter cost,
Since the useless little fern was lost!

Useless? Lost? There came a thoughtful man
Searching for Nature’s secrets, far and deep;
From a fissure in a rocky steep,
He withdrew a stone, o’er which there ran
Fairy pencillings, a quaint design,
Leafage, veining fibres, clear and fine,
And the fern’s life lay in every line!
So, I think, God hides some souls away,
Sweetly to surprise us, the last day.

* * * * *

Shortly after mention, in this chapter, of some of the descendants
of the Rogerene leaders, Mr. John R. Bolles was called to join those
heroes whose vindication he had so conscientiously undertaken, in
the cause of justice and of truth. It remains to add to the above
list of descendants some notice of this deceased writer, who not
only bore the names of both of the principal Rogerene leaders, but
was a direct descendant of both, his mother being a daughter of John
Rogers, 3d, and his father a grandson of John Bolles. For this
purpose is here presented the briefest of the several obituary
notices that appeared in New London papers, being an editorial in
the _Daily Telegraph_, of February 26, 1895.

The death of John Rogers Bolles removes from the people one who
might be regarded almost as a relic of the old times when men were
inspired to bear messages to the world. He was a bold and
persistent fighter of what he deemed wrong and an active and
indefatigable warrior for the right; any cause in which he was
engaged was certain to have the whole benefit of his energies. The
achievements of Mr. Bolles for his city and state have been fully
set forth in the number of brilliant and graphic papers he
contributed to _The Telegraph_ and which were read with the widest
interest, not only by those here but in other states. But it was
not left for himself to chronicle his work. Some of the greatest
men of the nation have been his friends and have repeatedly
testified their admiration and respect for his remarkable
qualities of mind. Mr. Bolles had a memory that was something
prodigious. He was able to correct with the utmost ease the most
trivial misplacements of a word in a MS. of many thousands, and
his familiarity with the Book and all authors, ancient and modern,
was also little less than a marvel, considering his lack of sight
in later years. His reasoning powers were keen and wonderfully
swift, he could anticipate and provide means against an emergency
in an inconceivably short time, and as a tactician in the fight
for New London’s rights he was one of the most skilful and adroit
of managers. Had he devoted his life to other than the work which
was his sole aim, he would undoubtedly have won national
pre-eminence. But after leaving the business of publishing, in
which he was very successful and which he brought to a high degree
of excellence here, he went with all his energies for the
development of the Navy Yard, and in the pursuit of this object he
spared nothing, himself least of all. He was very fluent in
speech. His figures were always grand and forcible, and the
magnetic power of his utterance carried away his audience. His pen
is well known. There was a wonderful power of imagery in him, and
he often expressed himself in verse of no mean order. His capacity
for doing literary labor was something enormous; he could turn out
a volume that would stagger an industrious man, and yet be fresh
to tackle another subject after five or six consecutive hours of
steady application. New London owes a great deal to John R.
Bolles, how much it will understand more fully as time goes on.

But apart from his mental endowments, the grand simplicity and
purity of the man deserves the highest commendation. He hated
vice. He lived in virtue. His faith might not have been that of
the creed follower, but he had a sublime and unshaken confidence
in God and belief in His love for him and all true followers of
His rules. Simple, sincere, innocent as a babe of wrong thought or
act, John R. Bolles ended his long life a firm believer in the
goodness and mercy of the Creator whom all that life he had
worshipped with the worship of faith and act and example. In
Christ he lived and in Christ he fell asleep.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART II.
HISTORY OF THE ROGERENES.

BY
ANNA B. WILLIAMS.

THE GREAT LEADERSHIP.

CHAPTER I.

1637-1652.

Among noticeable young men in the Colony of Connecticut, previous to
1640, is James Rogers.[27] His name first appears on record at New
Haven, but shortly after, in 1637, he is a soldier from Saybrook in
the Pequot war.[28] He is next at Stratford, where he acquires
considerable real estate and marries Elizabeth, daughter of Samuel
Rowland, a landed proprietor of that place, who eventually leaves a
valuable estate to his grandson, Samuel Rogers, and presumably other
property to his daughter, who seems to have been an only child. A
few years later, James Rogers appears at Milford. His wife joins the
Congregational church there in 1645, and he himself joins this
church in 1652.

-----

Footnote 27:

The parentage and native place of James Rogers remain
undiscovered. He may, or may not, have been the James Rogers who
came over in the _Increase_ (Hotten). There were several of the
same name and date in New England. There is a tradition in the New
London family, which can be traced as far back as 1750, that James
Rogers of New London was a grandson, or greatgrandson, of John
Rogers the martyr. Up to this date (1904) no proof has been found
to substantiate this claim. The same claim has been made by
descendants of other first settlers of the name of Rogers, and
their traditions are also proven to have been of early date. These
long-standing and very persistent traditions may possibly be
explained by some future discovery.

Footnote 28:

1679—James Rogers sells Thos. Parker 50 A. of land that were
granted James Rogers of N. London, by the Gen. Court, he being a
Pequot soldier.—_New London Land Records._

Also in “Memorial History of Hartford,” by J. Hammond Trumbull
(pub. 1886), p. 81, is a chapter on the Pequot War, by Rev.
Increase N. Tarbox, which names the men from Saybrook, viz. “John
Underhill, Edward Pattison, James Rogers, Edward Lay, John Gallup
and John Wood.”

-----

He has evidently been a baker on a large scale for some time
previous to 1655, at which date complaint is made to the General
Court in regard to a quantity of biscuit furnished by him, which was
exported to Virginia and the Barbadoes, upon which occasion he
states that the flour furnished by the miller for this bread was not
properly ground. The miller substantially admits that he did not at
that time understand the correct manner of grinding.

In the course of ten years, Milford proves too small a port for the
operations of this enterprising and energetic man, whose business
includes supplies to seamen and troops. Governor Winthrop is holding
out inducements for him to settle at New London. In 1656 he is
empowered by the General Court to sell his warehouse at Milford,
with his other property, provided said building be used only as a
warehouse. He now begins to purchase valuable lands and houses at
New London, and so continues for many years, frequently adding some
choice house-lot, Indian clearing, meadowland, pasture or woodland
to his possessions. In 1659 he sells to Francis Hall, an attorney of
Fairfield, “all” his “lands, commons and houses in Stratford,
Milford and New Haven.”—(_History of Stratford._)

At New London, in addition to his large baking business, he has
charge of the town mill, by lease from Governor Winthrop, at the
head of an inlet called Winthrop’s Cove and forming Winthrop’s Neck,
which neck comprises the home lot of the governor. That James Rogers
may build his house near the mill,[29] the Governor conveys to him a
piece of his own land adjoining, upon which Mr. Rogers builds a
stone dwelling. He also builds a stone bakery by the cove and has a
wharf at this point.[30]

-----

Footnote 29:

An ancient mill built in 1728, on or very near the site of the
first mill, is still standing (see “Hempstead Diary,” page 200).
Less than fifty years ago, the cove was a beautiful sheet of water
commencing just in front of the mill, separated from it by little
more than the width of the winding street, and from thence
stretching out in rippling, shining currents to the river. This
cove has been so filled in of recent years that considerable
imagination must be exercised to reproduce the ancient sweep of
clear, blue water known as Winthrop’s Cove.

Footnote 30:

In 1664 he gave his son Samuel land “by the mill” “west side of my
wharf.”

The long Main street of the town takes a sharp turn around the head
of the cove, past the mill and to the house of the Governor, the
latter standing on the east side of the cove, within a stone’s throw
of the mill.

The native forest is all around, broken here and there by a patch of
pasture or planting ground. One of the main roads leading into the
neighboring country runs southerly five miles to the Great Neck, a
large, level tract of land bordering Long Island Sound. Another
principal country road runs northerly from the mill, rises a long
hill, and, after the first two or three miles, is scarcely more than
an Indian trail, extending five miles to Mohegan, the headquarters
of Uncas and his tribe. Upon this road are occasional glimpses,
through the trees, of the “Great River” (later the Thames).

James Rogers is soon not only the principal business man of this
port, but, next to the Governor, the richest man in the colony. His
property in the colony much exceeds that of the Governor. He is
prominent in town and church affairs, he and his wife having joined
the New London church; also frequently an assistant at the Superior
Court and deputy at the General Court. His children are receiving a
superior education for the time, as becomes their father’s means and
station. Life and activity are all about these growing youth, at the
bakery, at the mill, at the wharf. Many are the social comings and
goings, not only to and from the Governor’s house,[31] just beside
them, but to and from their own house. His extensive business
dealings and his attendance at court have brought James Rogers in
contact with intelligent and prosperous men all over the colony,
among whom he is a peer. His education is good, if not superior, for
the time. He numbers among his personal friends some of the
principal planters in this colony and neighboring colonies.

-----

Footnote 31:

Occupied by his son-in-law after Mr. Winthrop’s removal to
Hartford In 1657.

1666.

In 1666 James Rogers retires from active business. His sons Samuel
and Joseph are capable young men past their majority. Samuel is well
fitted to take charge of the bakery. Joseph inclines to the life of
a country gentleman. John, an active youth of eighteen, is the
scholar of the family. He writes his father’s deeds and other
business documents, which indicates some knowledge of the law.
Besides being sons of a rich man, these are exceptionally capable
young men. That there is no stain upon their reputations is
indicated by the favor with which they are regarded by certain
parents of marriageable daughters. In this year occurs the marriage
of Samuel to the daughter of Thomas Stanton, who is a prominent man
in the colony and interpreter between the General Court and the
Indians. The parents of each make a handsome settlement upon the
young people, James Rogers giving his son the stone dwelling-house
and the bakery. This young man has recently sold the farm received
from his grandfather, Samuel Rowland. Having also grants from the
town and lands from his father (to say nothing of gifts from
Owaneco), together with a flourishing business, Samuel Rogers is a
rich man at an early age.

Somewhat before the marriage of Samuel, his father, in anticipation
of this event, established himself upon the Great Neck, on a farm
bought in 1660, of a prominent settler named Obadiah Bruen. This is
one of the old Indian planting grounds so valuable in these forest
days. Yet James Rogers does not reside long on the beautiful bank of
Robin Hood’s Bay (now Jordan Cove), for in this same year his son
Joseph, not yet twenty-one years of age, receives this place, “the
farm where I now dwell” and also “all my other lands on the Great
Neck,” as a gift from his father. All the “other lands” being
valuable, this is a large settlement. (It appears to mark the year
of Joseph’s marriage, although the exact date and also the name of
the bride are unknown. The residence of James Rogers for the next
few years is uncertain; it is not unlikely that he takes up his
abode in one of his houses in town, or possibly at the Mamacock
farm, on the Mohegan road and the “Great River,” which place was
formerly granted by the town to the Rev. Mr. Blinman, and, upon the
latter’s removal from New London, was purchased by Mr. Rogers.)

The next marriage in this family is that of Bathsheba, a beloved
daughter. She marries a young man named Richard Smith. A prominent
feature in the character of this daughter is her fidelity to her
parents and brothers, and especially to her brother John.

1670.

Matthew Griswold is a leading member in the church of Saybrook. He
resides close by the Sound, at Lyme, on a broad sweep of low-lying
meadows called Blackhall, which is but a small portion of his landed
estate. His wife is a daughter of Henry Wolcott, one of the founders
and principal men of Windsor, and a prominent man in the colony.
Matthew Griswold is, like James Rogers, a frequent assistant and
deputy. There are many proofs that he and his wife are persons of
much family pride, and not without good reasons for the same. When,
in 1670, they enter into an agreement with James Rogers for the
marriage of their daughter Elizabeth to his son John, it is
doubtless with the knowledge that this is a very promising young
man, as well as the son of a wealthy and generous father.

How far from the mind of the young lover, when, on the night before
the happy day when he is to call Elizabeth his bride, he pens the
writing[32] which is to give her the Mamacock farm, recently
presented to him by his father, is a thought of anything that can
part them until death itself. To this writing he adds: “I do here
farther engage not to carry her out of the colony of Connecticut.”
This sentence goes to prove the great fondness of the parents for
this daughter, her own loving desire to live always near them, and
the ready compliance of the young lover with their wishes. He
marries her at Blackhall, October 17, and takes her to the beautiful
river farm which upon that day becomes her own. He does not take her
to the farmhouse built by Mr. Blinman, but to a new and commodious
dwelling, close by the Mohegan road, whose front room is 20 by 20,
and whose big fireplaces, in every room, below and above, will rob
the wintry blasts of their terror. The marriage settlement upon the
young couple, by James Rogers and Matthew Griswold, includes
provisions, furniture, horses, sheep, and kine.[33]

-----

Footnote 32:

Still to be seen in “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in State
Library, Hartford.

Footnote 33:

See same “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors” for Marriage
Settlement.

1673.

In 1673, James Rogers, Jr., is of age. No large gift of land to this
young man is recorded; for which reason it seems probable that his
principal portion in the lifetime of his father is the good ship of
which he is master. His ability to navigate and command a foreign
bound vessel at such an age is sufficient guarantee of the skill and
enterprise of this youth. In 1674, the young shipmaster has
(according to tradition in that branch of the family—_Caulkins_)
among his passengers to Connecticut a family emigrating from
Ireland, one member of which is an attractive young woman twenty
years of age. Before the vessel touches port, the young captain and
his fair passenger are betrothed, and the marriage takes place soon
after.[34]

-----

Footnote 34:

In after life he was accustomed to say that it was the richest
cargo he ever shipped and the best bargain he ever made.—_History
of New London._

It was a frequent custom in those days, for persons emigrating to
the colonies to pay the expenses of their passage by selling their
services for a term after landing. Such passengers were called
“redemptioners.” Thus, Captain James actually purchased, as the
term was, his wife Mary.

1674.

Although John Rogers resides at Mamacock farm, he is by no means
wholly occupied in the care of that place; a young man of his means
has capable servants. As for years past, he is actively interested
in business, both for his father and himself. At Newport, in the
year 1674, he meets with members of the little Sabbatarian church of
that place, recently started by a few devout and earnest students of
the Bible, who having, some years before, perceived that certain
customs of the Congregational churches have no precedent or
authority in Scripture, resolved to follow these customs no longer,
but to be guided solely by the example and precepts of Christ and
his apostles. In attempting to carry out this resolve, they
renounced and denounced sprinkling and infant baptism and attached
themselves to the First Baptist Church of Newport. About 1665, they
were led, by the teachings of Stephen Mumford, a Sabbatarian from
England, to discern in the first day Sabbath the authority of man
and not of God. Under this persuasion, the little company came out
of the First Baptist Church, of Newport, and formed the Sabbatarian
Church of that place. Mr. Thomas Hiscox is pastor of this little
church, and Mr. Samuel Hubbard and his wife (formerly among the
founders of the First Congregational Church of Springfield, Mass.)
are among its chief members. During this year, under the preaching
and teachings of this church, John Rogers is converted.

Hitherto this young man and his wife Elizabeth have been members of
the regular church, as ordinary membership is accounted, and their
two children have been baptized in that church, at New London. If
children of professed Christians, baptized in childhood, lead an
outwardly moral life, attend the stated worship and otherwise
conform to the various church usages, this is sufficient to
constitute them, as young men and young women, members in good and
regular standing. The daughter of Elder Matthew Griswold has been as
ignorant of the work of regeneration as has been the son of James
Rogers.

The conversion of John Rogers was directly preceded by one of those
sudden and powerful convictions of sin so frequently exemplified in
all ages of the Christian church, and so well agreeing with
Scriptural statements regarding the new birth. Although leading a
prominently active business life, in a seaport town, from early
youth, and thus thrown among all classes of men and subjected to
many temptations, this young man has given no outward sign of any
lack of entire probity. Whatever his lapses from exact virtue, they
have occasioned him no serious thought, until, by the power of this
conversion, he perceives himself a sinner. Under this deep
conviction the memory of a certain youthful error weighs heavily
upon his conscience.

He has at this time one confidant, his loving, sympathetic and
deeply interested young wife, who cordially welcomes the new light
from Newport. In the candid fervor of his soul, he tells her all,
even the worst he knows of himself, and that he feels in his heart
that, by God’s free grace, through the purifying blood of Jesus
Christ, even his greatest sin is washed away and forgiven.

Does this young woman turn, with horror and aversion, from the
portrayal of this young man’s secret sin? By no means.[35] She is
not only filled with sympathy for his deep sorrow and contrition,
but rejoices with him in his change of heart and quickened
conscience. More than this, understanding that even one as pure as
herself may be thus convicted of sin and thus forgiven and reborn,
she joins with him in prayer that such may be her experience also.
They study the New Testament together, and she finds, as he has
said, that there is here no mention of a change from a seventh to
a first day Sabbath, and no apparent warrant for infant baptism,
but the contrary; the command being first to believe and then to
be baptized. Other things they find quite contrary to the
Congregational way. In her ardor, she joins with him to openly
declare these errors in the prevailing belief and customs.

-----

Footnote 35:

The account given by their son of this joint conviction of John
Rogers and his wife furnishes evidence of a considerable period in
which they were in full friendship and accord after the disclosure
made to the wife. For account, see Part I, Chapter III.

Little is the wonder that to Elder Matthew Griswold and his wife the
news that their daughter and her husband are openly condemning the
usages of the powerful church of which they, and all their
relatives, are such prominent members, comes like a thunderbolt.
Their own daughter is condemning even the grand Puritan Sabbath and
proposes to work hereafter upon that sacred day and to worship upon
Saturday. They find that her husband has led Elizabeth into this
madness. They accuse and upbraid him, they reason and plead with
him. But all in vain. He declares to them his full conviction that
this is the call and enlightenment of the Lord himself. Moreover,
was it not the leading resolve of the first Puritans to be guided
and ruled only by the Word of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ? Did
they not warn their followers to maintain a jealous watchfulness
against any belief, decree or form of worship not founded upon the
Scriptures? Did they not urge each to search these Scriptures for
himself? He has searched these Scriptures, and Elizabeth with him,
and they have found a most astonishing difference between the
precepts and example of Christ and the practice and teachings of the
Congregational church.

Elder Matthew Griswold is ready with counter arguments on the
Presbyterian side. But “the main instrument” by which Elizabeth is
restored to her former church allegiance is her mother, the daughter
of Henry Wolcott. This lady is sister of Simon Wolcott, who is
considered one of the handsomest, most accomplished and most
attractive gentlemen of his day. Although she may have similar
charms and be a mother whose judgment a daughter would highly
respect, yet she is evidently one of the last from whom could be
expected any deviation, in belief or practice, from the teachings
and customs of her father’s house. That her daughter has been led to
adopt the notions of these erratic Baptists is, to her mind, a
disgrace unspeakable. She soon succeeds in convincing Elizabeth that
this is no influence of the Holy Spirit, as declared by John Rogers,
but a device of the Evil One himself. Under such powerful counter
representations, on the part of her relatives and acquaintances, as
well as by later consideration of the social disgrace attendant upon
her singular course, Elizabeth is finally led to publicly recant her
recently avowed belief, despite the pleadings of her husband. At the
same time, she passionately beseeches him to recant also, declaring
that unless he will renounce the evil spirit by which he has been
led, she cannot continue to live with him. He, fully persuaded that
he has been influenced by the very Spirit of God, declares that he
cannot disobey the divine voice within his soul.

One sad day, after such a scene as imagination can well picture,
this young wife prepares herself, her little girl of two years and
her baby boy, for the journey to Blackhall, with the friends who
have come to accompany her. Even as she rides away, hope must be
hers that, after the happy home is left desolate, her husband will
yield to her entreaties. Not so with him as he sees depart the light
and joy of Mamacock, aye, Mamacock itself which he has given her. He
drinks the very dregs of this cup without recoil. He parts with wife
and children and lands, for His name’s sake. Well he knows in his
heart, that for him can be no turning. And what can he now expect of
the Griswolds?

Although his own home is deserted and he will no more go cheerily to
Blackhall, there is still a place where dear faces light at his
coming. It is his father’s house. Here are appreciative listeners to
the story of his recent experiences and convictions; father and
mother, brothers and sisters, are for his sake reading the Bible
anew. They find exact Scripture warrant for his sudden, deep
conviction of sin and for his certainty that God has heard his
fervent prayers, forgiven his sins and bestowed upon him a new
heart. They find no Scripture warrant for a Sabbath upon the first
day of the week, nor for baptism of other than believers, nor for a
specially learned and aristocratic ministry. They, moreover, see no
authority for the use of civil power to compel persons to religious
observances, and such as were unknown to the early church, and no
good excuse for the inculcating of doctrines and practices contrary
to the teachings of Christ and his apostles. Shortly, James, the
young shipmaster, has an experience similar to that of his brother,
as has also an Indian by the name of Japhet. This Indian is an
intelligent and esteemed servant in the family of James Rogers, Sr.

At this time, the home of James Rogers is upon the Great Neck. By
some business agreement, his son Joseph resigned to his father, in
1670, the lands upon this Neck which had been given him in 1666. In
this year (1674), his father reconfirms to him the property bought
of Obadiah Bruen, by Robin Hood’s Bay. The younger children,
Jonathan and Elizabeth, are still at home with their parents.
Bathsheba and her family are living near, on the Great Neck, as are
also Captain James and his family.

Although John may still lay some claim to Mamacock farm, while
awaiting legal action on the part of the Griswolds, it can be no
home to him in these days of bitter bereavement. Warm hearts welcome
him to his father’s house, by the wide blue Sound, and here he takes
up his abode. Never a man of his temperament but loved the sea and
the wind, the sun and the storm, the field and the wood. All of
these are here. Here, too, is his “boat,” evidently as much a part
of the man as his horse. No man but has a horse for these primitive
distances, and in this family will be none but the best of steeds
and boats in plenty.

Near the close of this eventful year, Mr. James Rogers sends for Mr.
John Crandall to visit at his house. Mr. Crandall has, for some
time, been elder of the Baptist church at Westerly, an offshoot of
the Baptist church of Newport. He has recently gone over with his
flock to the Sabbatarian church of Newport. If the subject of
possible persecution in Connecticut is brought up, who can better
inspire the new converts with courage for such an ordeal than he who
has been imprisoned and whipped in Boston for daring to avow his
disbelief in infant baptism and his adherence to the primitive mode
by immersion? The conference is so satisfactory, that Mr. Crandall
baptizes John Rogers, his brother James, and the servant
Japhet.—(_Letter of Mr. Hubbard._)

News of the baptism of these young men into the Anabaptist faith by
Mr. Crandall, at their father’s house, increases the comment and
excitement already started in the town. The minister, Mr. Simon
Bradstreet, expresses a hope that the church will “take a course”
with the Rogers family. The Congregational churches at large are
greatly alarmed at this startling innovation in Connecticut. The
tidings travel fast to Blackhall, dispelling any lingering hope that
John Rogers may repent of his erratic course. Immediately after this
occurrence, his wife, by the aid of her friends, takes steps towards
securing a divorce and the guardianship of her children. From her
present standpoint, her feelings and action are simply human, even,
in a sense, womanly. He who is to suffer will be the last to upbraid
her, his blame will be for those who won her from his view to
theirs, from the simple word of Scripture to the iron dictates of
popular ecclesiasticism.

If John Rogers and his friends know anything as yet of the plot on
the part of the Griswolds to make the very depth of his repentance
for an error of his unregenerate youth an instrument for his utter
disgrace and bereavement, their minds are not absorbed at this time
with matters of such worldly moment.

1675.

In March, 1675, James Rogers, Sr., and his family send for Elder
Hiscox, Mr. Samuel Hubbard and his son Clarke, of the Sabbatarian
church of Newport, to visit them. Before the completion of this
visit, Jonathan Rogers (twenty years of age) is baptized. Following
this baptism, John, James, Japhet and Jonathan are received as
members of the Sabbatarian church of Newport, by prayer and laying
on of hands.—(_Letter of Mr. Hubbard._)

This consummation of John’s resolves brings matters to a hasty issue
on the part of the Griswolds, in lines already planned. There is no
law by which a divorce can be granted on account of difference in
religious views. In some way this young man’s character must be
impugned, and so seriously as to afford plausible grounds for
divorcement. How fortunate that, at the time of his conversion, he
made so entire a confidant of his wife. Fortunate, also, that his
confession was a blot that may easily be darkened, with no hindrance
to swearing to the blot. At this time, the young woman’s excited
imagination can easily magnify that which did not appear so serious
in the calm and loving days at Mamacock, even as with tear-wet eyes
he told the sorrowful story of his contrition. Thus are laid before
the judges of the General Court, representations to the effect that
this is no fit man to be the husband of Elizabeth, daughter of
Matthew Griswold. The judges, lawmakers and magistrates of
Connecticut belong to the Congregational order—the only elite and
powerful circle of the time; this, taken in connection with the
unfavorable light in which the Rogerses are now regarded in such
quarters, is greatly to the Griswold advantage.

Yet, despite aversion and alarm on the part of the ruling
dignitaries regarding the new departure and the highly colored
petition that has been presented to the court by the daughter of
Matthew Griswold, there is such evident proof that the petitioner is
indulging an intensity of bitterness bordering upon hatred towards
the man who has refused, even for her sake, to conform to popular
belief and usages, that the judges hesitate to take her testimony,
even under oath. Moreover, the only serious charge in this document
rests solely upon the alleged declaration of John Rogers against
himself, in a private conference with his wife. This charge,
however, being represented in the character of a crime[36] (under
the early laws), is sufficient for his arrest. Very soon after his
reception into the Sabbatarian church, the young man is seized and
sent to Hartford for imprisonment, pending the decision of the grand
jury.

-----

Footnote 36:

There were, on the law books, so-called capital crimes which were
never punished as such. “Man-stealing” was a so-called capital
crime, yet we shall find, further on, that it was punishable by an
ordinary fine. No mention is made on the court records or files of
the crime of which John Rogers was accused by the Griswolds, on
charge of which he was examined at Hartford. No record was made of
this matter, and we have only vague mention on the court files of
the petition of Elizabeth for this divorce by which to even
conjecture the nature of the charge.

Although John Rogers has been a member of the Sabbatarian church but
a few weeks, he is already pastor of a little church on the Great
Neck (under the Newport church) of which his father, mother,
brothers and sisters are devout attendants, together with servants
of the family and neighbors who have become interested in the new
departure. Who will preach to this little congregation, while its
young pastor is in Hartford awaiting the issue of the Griswold
vengeance? Of those who have received baptism, James is upon the
“high seas,” in pursuance of his calling, and Jonathan is but a
youth of twenty. Yet Mr. James Rogers does not permit the Seventh
Day Sabbath of Christ and His disciples to pass unobserved. The
little congregation gather at his house, as usual, and sit in
reverent silence, as in the presence of the Lord.[37] Perchance the
Holy Spirit will inspire some among them to speak or to pray. They
are not thus gathered because this is the Quaker custom, for they
are not Quakers; they are simply following a distinct command of the
Master and awaiting the fulfilment of one of His promises.

-----

Footnote 37:

Here is an apparent variation, at the outset, from the Newport
church.

William Edmundson, the Quaker preacher, driven by a storm into New
London harbor on a Saturday in May, 1675, goes ashore there and
endeavors to gather a meeting, but is prevented by the authorities.
Hearing there are some Baptists five miles from town, who hold their
meetings upon that day, he feels impressed with a desire to visit
them. Meeting with two men of friendly inclinations, who are willing
to accompany him, he goes to the Great Neck and finds there this
little congregation, assembled as described, “with their servants
and negroes,”[38] sitting in silence. At first (according to his
account) they appear disturbed at the arrival of such unexpected
guests; but, upon finding this stranger only a friendly Quaker, they
welcome them cordially.

-----

Footnote 38:

By negroes is meant negro and Indian servants or slaves, of which
there were a number in the Rogers family, the slaves being held
for a term of years.

After sitting with them a short time in silence, the Quaker begins
to question them in regard to their belief and to expound to them
some of the Quaker doctrines. He sees they are desirous of a
knowledge of God and finds them very “ready” in the Scriptures. He
endeavors to convince them that after the coming of Christ a Sabbath
was no longer enjoined, Christ having ended the law and being the
rest of His people; also that the ordinance of water baptism should
long ago have ended, being superseded by the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. Although in no way convinced (as is afterwards fully
demonstrated), they listen courteously to his arguments and to the
prayer that follows. Not only so, but, by his declaration, they are
“very tender and loving.” The next day, this zealous Quaker, having
obtained leave of a man in New London, who is well inclined towards
the Quakers, to hold a meeting at his house, finds among his
audience several of the little congregation on the Great Neck. In
the midst of this meeting, the constable and other officers appear,
and break it up forcibly, with rough handling and abuse, much to the
indignation of those who have been anxious to give Mr. Edmundson a
fair hearing.

The week after his visit to New London, Mr. Edmundson is at an inn
in Hartford, where he improves an opportunity to present certain
Quaker doctrines to some of those stopping there, and judges that he
has offered unanswerable arguments in proof that every man has a
measure of the Spirit of Christ. Suddenly, a young man in the
audience rises and argues so ably upon the other side as to destroy
the effect of Mr. Edmundson’s discourse. This leads the latter to a
private interview with his opponent, whose name he finds to be John
Rogers, and who proves to be “pastor” of the people whose meeting he
had attended at New London, on the Great Neck. He also learns from
this pastor that he was summoned to Hartford, to appear before the
Assembly, for the reason that, since he became a Baptist, the father
of his wife, who is of the ruling church, had been violently set
against him and was endeavoring to secure a divorce for his daughter
on plea of a confession made to her by himself regarding “an ill
fact” in his past life, “before he was her husband and while he was
one of their church,” with which, “under sorrow and trouble of
mind,” he “had acquainted her” and “which she had divulged to her
father.”

Mr. Edmundson informs the young man that he has been with his people
at New London and “found them loving and tender.”—(_Journal of Mr.
Edmundson._)

Since John Rogers remains at the inn for the night, he is evidently
just released from custody. So interwoven were truth and
misrepresentation in this case, that either admission or denial of
the main charge must have been difficult, if not impossible, on the
part of the accused. Moreover, there is for this young man, now and
henceforth, no law, precedent or example, save such as he finds in
the New Testament, through his Lord and Master. That Master, being
asked to declare whether he was or was not the King of the Jews, a
question of many possible phases and requiring such answer as his
judges neither could nor would comprehend, answered only by silence.
Ought this young man to repeat before these judges the exact
statement made to his wife, in the sacred precincts of his own home,
even if they would take the word of a despised Anabaptist like
himself? It is not difficult to see the young man’s position and
respect his entire silence, despite all efforts to make him speak
out in regard to the accusation made by his wife in her
petition.[39]

-----

Footnote 39:

That John Rogers could not be induced to either admit or deny the
charge presented for the purpose of obtaining the divorce, is from
a statement to that effect made by Peter Pratt, in “The Prey Taken
from the Strong.” This is one of the few statements made in that
pamphlet, which seem likely to be true and are not invalidated by
proof to the contrary. It will be seen that, at a later date, this
attitude of complete silence is frequent with the Rogerenes,
before the court.

The case before the grand jury having depended solely upon the word
of a woman resolved upon divorce and seeking ground for it, they
returned that they “find not the bill,” and John Rogers was
discharged from custody. Yet, in view of the representations of
Elizabeth in her petition regarding her unwillingness, for the
alleged reasons, to remain this young man’s wife, backed by powerful
influence in her favor, the court gave her permission to remain with
her children at her father’s for the present, “for comfort and
preservation” until a decision be rendered regarding the divorce, by
the General Court in October. No pains will be spared by the friends
of Elizabeth to secure a favorable decision from this court.

The Rev. Mr. Bradstreet, bitter in his prejudice against the young
man by whose influence has occurred such a departure from the
Congregational church as that of James Rogers and his family and
such precedent for the spread of anti-presbyterian views outside of
Rhode Island, writes in his journal at this date: “He is now at
liberty, but I believe he will not escape God’s judgment, though he
has man’s.”

Mr. Bradstreet reveals in his journal knowledge that the charge
advanced against this young man related to a period previous to his
marriage and conversion, and rested upon a confession that he had
made to his wife under conviction of sin and belief in the saving
power of Christ, which cleanses the vilest sinner.[40] Yet knowing
this, he says: “I believe he will not escape God’s judgment.” Truly
New England Puritan theology and the theology of the New Testament
are strangely at variance in these days.

-----

Footnote 40:

May 25, 1675.

“The testimony against him was his own wife—to whom he told it all
with his own mouth, and not in trouble of mind, but in a boasting
manner as of free grace, yt he was pardoned. This was much about
ye time he fell into yt cursed opinion of anabaptism.”—_Journal of
Mr. Bradstreet._ (See “New England Genealogical and Historical
Register,” Vol. 9, p. 47.)

With above compare:—

“After it pleased God, through His rich grace in Christ Jesus, to
take the guilt of my sins from my conscience and to send the
Spirit of His Son into my heart, whereby he did reveal unto me His
love and His acceptance of me in Jesus Christ, this unspeakable
mercy did greatly engage my heart to love God and diligently to
search the Scriptures, that thereby I might know how to serve God
acceptably, for then I soon became a seeker how to worship
God.”—_Epistle of John Rogers to the Seventh Day Baptists._

“And the coming to witness the truth of those Scriptures, by God’s
giving him a new heart and another spirit, and by remitting the
guilt of his sins, did greatly engage him to love God with all his
heart and his neighbor as himself.”—_John Rogers, Jr.—Reply to
Peter Pratt._

CHAPTER II.

1675.

Week by week, the little band of Bible students on the Great Neck
are becoming more and more familiar with the contents of the New
Testament. Heretofore they have, like the majority, accepted
religion as it has been prepared for them, as naturally as they
have accepted other customs, fashions and beliefs. Now that they
have begun to search and examine for themselves, it is in no
half-way fashion. Doubtless to a bold, direct, enterprising mode
of thought and action James Rogers owed his worldly success. It is
evident that his children, by inheritance and example, possess
like characteristics. Through the mystic power of conversion they
have come “to see and to know”[41] the truth of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. They believe that the Scriptures were inspired by
God himself, in the consciousness of holy men, and by His
providence written and preserved for the instruction of succeeding
generations; that, accordingly, what is herein written, by way of
precept or example, is binding upon the regenerate man, and no
command or example of men contrary to this Word should be obeyed,
whatever the worldly menace or action may be.

-----

Footnote 41:

See preamble to will of James Rogers, Part I., Chapter I.

John Rogers has already begun to work on the first day of the week.
Moreover, in order to conform with exactness to the New Testament
command and example relating to preachers of the Gospel, he has
taken up a handicraft, that of shoemaking. At this date, all
handicrafts are held in esteem, some of the most prominent men in a
community having one or more; yet the large dealings of Mr. James
Rogers have called for an active business life on the part of this
son, who appears to have been his “right-hand man.” In taking up
this handicraft, John Rogers appears not to neglect other business
(in 1678 we shall find him fulfilling a contract to build a ship
costing £4,640[42]), but to be busily employed at the bench in what
might otherwise be his leisure hours, and especially upon that day
which has been declared “holy” by man and not by God.

-----

Footnote 42:

See “History of Stratford.”

How closely this movement is watched by the Connecticut authorities
appears by a law enacted in May of this year, in which it is ordered
that no servile work shall be done on the Sabbath, save that of
piety, charity or necessity, upon penalty of 10_s._ fine for each
offense, and “in case the offence be circumstanced with high-handed
presumption as well as profaneness the penalty to be augmented at
the discretion of the judges.” What “high-handed presumption” and
“profaneness” consist of, in this case, will soon be evident.

The hesitation of the New London church in dealing with the Rogerses
can readily be understood. Mr. James Rogers is the principal
taxpayer, his rates for church and ministry are largest of all, to
say nothing of those of his sons. Not only this, but the family has
been one of the most respected in the town. Perchance they may yet
see the error of their ways, especially when they have decisive
proof of what is likely to proceed from the civil arm, if this
foolhardiness is continued.

1676.

Despite the ominous law aimed at themselves and their followers,
James Rogers, his wife and their daughter Bathsheba Smith, are
preparing for a final consecration to the unpopular cause. In
September, 1676, John, Capt. James, Japhet and Jonathan, the four
New London members of the Newport church, visit that church, and on
their return, September 19, bring with them Elder Hiscox and Mr.
Hubbard.—(_Letter of Mr. Hubbard._)

The Great Neck is still in midsummer beauty, with delicate touches
of autumnal brightness, when the hospitable mansion of James Rogers
is reopened to the friends who were here on a like mission in the
chilly days of winter. Grave and earnest must be the discourse of
those gathered on this occasion. That Connecticut is resolved to
withstand any inroad of new sects from Rhode Island, appears
certain. But James Rogers and his sons are men not to be cowed or
driven, especially when they judge their leadership to be from on
High. This little family group is resolving to brave the power and
opprobrium of Connecticut backed by Massachusetts.

If there is a hesitating voice in this assembly, it is probably that
of Samuel Rogers, whose wife’s sister is the wife of Rev. James
Noyes of Stonington, and who is similarly allied to other prominent
members of the Congregational order. Yet his sympathies are with the
cause he hesitates to fully espouse. (We shall find the next meeting
of this kind at his house.) As for Bathsheba, surely nothing but the
waiting for father and mother could so long have kept her from
following the example of her brother John.

In front of the house lies the wide, blue Sound. It is easy to
picture the scene, as the earnest, gray-haired man and his wife and
daughter accompany Elder Hiscox down the white slope of the beach to
the emblem of cleansing that comes to meet them. No event in the
past busy career of James Rogers can have seemed half so momentous
as the present undertaking. There are doubtless here present not a
few spectators, some of them from the church he has renounced, to
whom this baptism is as novel as it is questionable; but they must
confess to its solemnity and a consciousness that the rite in
Christ’s day was of a similar character. Those who came to smile
have surely forgotten that purpose, as the waters close over the man
who has been so honorable and honored a citizen, and who, despite
the ridicule and the censure, has only been seeking to obey the
commands of the Master, and, through much study, pious consideration
and fervent prayer, has decided upon so serious a departure from the
New England practice.

A summons for James Rogers and his wife and daughter to appear
before the magistrate is not long in coming. But they are soon
released. It cannot be an easy, pleasant or popular undertaking to
use violent measures against citizens of such good repute as James
Rogers and his family, whose earnest words in defense of their
course must have more genuine force than any the reverend minister
can bring to bear against it.

There is another Bible precedent wholly at variance with the
Congregational custom that this little church zealously advocates.
The apostles and teachers in the early church exacted no payment for
preaching the gospel, receiving—with the exception of the travelling
ministry—only such assistance as might any needy brother or sister
in the church. This practice was eminently suitable for the
promulgation of a religion that was to be “without money and without
price,” and well calculated to keep out false teachers actuated by
mercenary motives. So great a religion having been instituted, among
antagonistic peoples, by men who gave to that purpose only such time
as they could snatch from constant struggles for a livelihood, and
all its doctrines and code having been fully written out by these
very men, could not the teachers and pastors of successive ages so,
and with such dignity, maintain themselves and their families,
giving undeniable proof that their calling was of God and not of
mammon?

We have seen the young man, John Rogers, preparing himself for such
a life as this. He has laid aside the worldly dignity and ease that
might be his as the son of a rich man, to work at the humble trade
of shoemaking; that he may place himself fully with the common
people and give of the earnings of his own hands to the poor, as did
the brethren of old.

The General Court has heretofore discovered no sufficient reason for
granting the petition of Elizabeth Griswold for a divorce. It is
probable that, up to this date, it has looked for some relenting on
the part of the young nonconformist, rather than movements so
distinctly straightforward in the line of dissent. But now that
James Rogers and family have openly followed his lead to the extent
of engaging in manual labor upon the first day of the week, and
certain others on the Great Neck, who are members of the
Congregational church, are regarding the movement with favor, the
sympathy of this practically ecclesiastical body is fully enlisted
for the Griswolds.

This Court, which, for nearly a year beyond the time appointed for
its decision, has hesitated to grant the divorce to Elizabeth, now,
with no further ground than that first advanced, except this
evidently fixed determination of John Rogers and his relatives to
persist in their nonconformity, “doe find just cause to grant her
desire and doe” (Oct. 12, 1676) “free her from her conjugal bond to
John Rogers.”

Among the documents kept on file relating to trials and decisions,
the petition of Elizabeth does not appear in evidence, that the
public may examine it and discover the nature of the charge put
forward for the divorce. This petition and other evidence are kept
state and family secrets. There is a law by which particulars of any
trial which it is desired to keep secret must not be divulged by
speech or otherwise, under penalty of a heavy fine for each such
offense. Well may John Rogers and his son by Elizabeth Griswold ever
declare that this divorce was desired and obtained for no other
cause than “because John Rogers had renounced his religion.”

At the meeting of the County Court in January of this year, John
Rogers, Capt. James Rogers, Joseph Rogers, Richard Smith (husband of
Bathsheba), and one Joseph Horton are fined 15_s._ each for
non-attendance at church. All except John and Capt. James Rogers
offer excuse for this offense.

1677.

In the following February, James Rogers, Sr., and his wife
Elizabeth, Capt. James and his wife, Joseph and his wife, John,
Bathsheba and Jonathan, are each fined 15_s._ at the County Court
for non-attendance at church.

At the next County Court, in June, besides non-attendance at church,
John Rogers is charged with attending to his work on the first day
of the week, in May last, and with having upon that day brought “a
burthen of shoes into the town.” Upon this occasion, he owns to
these facts in court, and further declares before that assembly that
if his shop had stood under the window of Mr. Wetherell (magistrate)
or next to the meeting-house, he would thus have worked upon the
first day of the week. Capt. James and his brother Jonathan being
arraigned at the same court for non-attendance at church and for
work upon the first day of the week, assert that they have worked
upon that day and will so work for the future. James Rogers, Sr.,
being examined upon a like charge, owns that he has not refrained
from servile work upon the first day of the week “and in particular
his plowing.” “He had,” says the record, “been taken of plowing the
6th day of May,” by which it appears that he has been imprisoned
from that time until this June court, as has John also, since his
apprehension with the load of shoes. To have secured bail they must
have promised “good behavior”—viz. cessation of work on the first
day—until this session of the court, which they could not do, being
resolved upon this same regular course.

Mary, wife of Capt. James Rogers, herself a member of the Newport
church, is presented at the same court for absenting herself for the
last six months from public worship. Bathsheba Smith is presented
for the same, and also for a “lying, scandalous paper against the
church and one of its elders” set up “upon the meeting house.” This
paper was evidently occasioned by the abovementioned imprisonment of
her father and brother on account of their having substituted the
Scriptural Sabbath for that instituted centuries later by
ecclesiastical law.

The court “sees cause to bear witness against such pride,
presumption and horrible profaneness in all the said persons,
appearing to be practiced and resolved in the future,” and order
that “a fine of £5 apiece be taken from each of them and that they
remain in prison at their own charge until they put in sufficient
bond or security to no more violate any of the laws respecting the
due observance of the first day of the week,” or “shall forthwith
upon their releasement depart and remain out of the colony.”
Bathsheba is fined £5 for non-attendance at church and the
“scandalous paper,” and Mary and Elizabeth 10_s._ each for
non-attendance at church.

It is evident that a crisis has now arrived; the sacred Puritan
Sabbath has been ignored in an amazingly bold manner by this little
band of dissenters, who openly declare, in court, their intention of
keeping a seventh day Sabbath, and that alone, whatever be the
menace or the punishment.

In these early days, £5 is so large a sum as to be of the nature of
an extreme penalty. Truly, the “discretion of the judges” is
beginning to work. How James Rogers and his two sons escaped from
prison at all, after this sentence, does not appear; certainly they
did not give any bonds not to repeat their offenses nor any promise
to remove from the colony. Proof of their release is in the fact
that they are all again before the court at its very next meeting,
in September, together with Elizabeth, Mary, Joseph and his wife,
all for non-attendance at church; and upon this occasion, John
declares that he neither does nor will attend the Congregational
church, nor will he refrain from servile work on the first day of
the week, upon which the court repeats the fine of £5 “for what is
past” and recommends to the commissioners that the delinquent be
called to account by a £5 fine “if not once a week yet once a
month.” This, if strictly carried out, means almost constant
imprisonment for John at his own charge, since it is against his
principles to pay any such fines, or to give any of the required
promises. Even could he be at large, £60 a year would seem to be
more than he could earn by shoemaking. (At this period, £60 would
buy a good farm “with mansion house thereon.”)

Besides the arraignment of the Rogers family at the June court, as
previously described, a suit is brought by Matthew Griswold for
damages to the amount of £300. A part of this sum is for the
Mamacock farm, which John Rogers very naturally declined to deliver
up to the marshal on demand of the divorced wife, which refusal is
denominated by Mr. Griswold in this suit a “breach of covenant.”
Another part is for the Griswold share of articles comprised in the
marriage settlement of the fathers upon the couple. In this sum of
£300 is also included a considerable charge for the maintenance of
Elizabeth and her children at her father’s, during the time between
her leaving her husband’s house and the date of the divorcement by
the General Court; also board for her and her first child three
months at her father’s house, during an illness following birth of
said child (see Chapter XIV, “Dragon’s Teeth”).

Thus the divorced husband is asked to deliver up the farm he gave
Elizabeth in full expectation of her remaining his wife, to repay
all that her father gave them during the four years of their happy
married life, to pay her board during a visit to her father’s house
by solicitation of her parents,[43] and also to recompense her
father for the maintenance of herself and children at the same place
after she had deserted her husband and forcibly taken away his
children.

-----

Footnote 43:

An evident attempt is made by the Griswolds, in inserting this
item in the bill for damages, to lay the illness of Elizabeth
following the birth of her child to some failure on the part of
the young husband to suitably provide for her confinement. Her
son, John Rogers, 2d, however, in his “Reply” to his half-brother,
Peter Pratt, mentions a far more serious and lengthy illness that
befell Elizabeth upon the birth of her latter son, during which
illness both she and her husband, Peter Pratt, Sr., had great
misgivings regarding the justice of her divorce from John Rogers.
That the illness in either case was of a constitutional origin is
indicated by the parallel cases.

It is to the credit of this County Court that, although incensed at
the audacity of John Rogers in bringing a load of shoes into town on
the first day of the week, together with his other “offenses,” it
decides this case wholly in favor of the defendant.

An appeal is taken by Mr. Griswold. In the following October his
suit comes before the Superior Court at Hartford. This court
reverses the decision of the County Court as regards the farm, which
is to “stand firm” to Elizabeth “during her natural life.”

At the October session of the General Court, Elizabeth Griswold
petitions that her children may be continued with her and brought up
by her, their father “being so hettridox in his opinions and
practice.”

The court, “having considered the petition, and John Rogers having
in open court declared that he did utterly renounce all the visible
worship of New England and professedly declare against the Christian
Sabbath as a mere invention,” grants her petition “for the present
and during the pleasure of the court.” John Rogers is to pay a
certain amount towards the support of his children at Matthew
Griswold’s, for which the Mamacock farm is to stand as security.[44]

-----

Footnote 44:

Elizabeth afterwards appears to have all the rents towards support
of the children. Later, when the children are grown, she gives up
the farm to John Rogers, for a reasonable consideration, as will
be seen.

The various forms of stringency lately in operation are so little
deterrent to the new movement that on Saturday, Nov. 23, Elder
Hiscox and Mr. Hubbard are again at New London, holding worship with
the Rogerses.[45] The next day, Joseph’s wife, having given a
satisfactory account of her experience, is to be baptized. In this
instance, John Rogers proposes that they perform the baptism openly
in the town. This earnest and zealous young man overcomes the
objections of the saintly but more cautious Mr. Hubbard. Moreover,
his father, mother, Joseph and Bathsheba are on his side, and there
is evident readiness on the part of the person to be baptized. If
they have, at much peril and loss, begun a good work in this region,
by setting aside inventions of men and substituting the teaching and
practice of Christ and his apostles, it is no true following of the
Master to hide their light under a bushel.

-----

Footnote 45:

The facts contained in this chapter, not otherwise indicated, are
from Letters of Mr. Samuel Hubbard.

No mention is made of objection on the part of Elder Hiscox to going
into town on this occasion, and he is found preaching there before
the baptism, out of doors by the mill cove, with an alarming number
of hearers. He is soon arrested and brought before a magistrate and
the minister, Mr. Bradstreet. The latter has “much to say about the
good way their fathers set up in the colony,” upon which Mr. Hubbard
replies that, whereas Mr. Bradstreet is a young man, he himself is
an old planter of Connecticut and well knows that the beginners of
this colony were not for persecution, but that they had liberty at
first to worship according to their consciences, while in later
times he himself has been persecuted, to the extent of being driven
out of this Colony, because he differed from the Congregational
church.

Some impression appears to be made upon the magistrate; since he
asks them if they cannot perform this obnoxious baptism by immersion
elsewhere, to which Mr. Hubbard assents. They are then released and
proceed to the house of Samuel Rogers, by the mill cove.

The time consumed in going from the presence of the magistrate to
the house of his brother is sufficient to fix the resolve of John
Rogers that no man, or men, shall stand between him and a command of
his Master. For more than two years he has been an acknowledged
pastor of the New London Seventh Day Baptist Church, under the
church at Newport. If the older pastor from Newport cannot perform a
scriptural baptism in the name of the Master, for fear of what men
can do, in the way of persecution, then that duty devolves upon
himself. Upon reaching his brother’s house, he offers an earnest
prayer; then, taking his sister by the hand, he leads her down the
green slope before his brother’s door, to the water, and himself
immerses her, in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in the
glistening water of the cove.

Doubtless the crowd that gathered during Mr. Hiscox’s discourse and
the after-disturbance has not yet dispersed, for the magistrate is
directly informed of what has taken place. Supposing Mr. Hiscox to
be the daring offender, he is straightway apprehended. But John
Rogers appears before the magistrate, to state that he himself is
the author of this terrible act, upon which Mr. Hiscox is released
and the younger pastor is held in custody.

This new action on the part of the fearless and uncompromising
youth, increases the excitement and comment. If the majority of the
townspeople condemn him, there are yet some, even of Mr.
Bradstreet’s congregation, to wonder and admire. James Rogers, Sr.,
and his family undoubtedly rejoice that John is not to be turned
aside by the hesitation of others, or for fear of what men can do to
him. As for Jonathan, who is engaged to Naomi Burdick, granddaughter
of Mr. Hubbard, it is not strange if he has hesitated to approve of
a move made contrary to Mr. Hubbard’s judgment.

It soon further appears that the New London church is not studying
to conform to that at Newport, but to know the very doctrines and
will of Christ himself, as revealed by His own words and acts and by
those of His disciples.

In the course of their study of the New Testament, the Rogerses find
distinct command against long and formal prayers like those of the
prescribed church, so evidently constructed to be heard and
considered of men, and of a length that would probably have appalled
even the Pharisee in the temple.[46]

They also carefully consider the command given by Christ to the
disciples, and to believers in general, in regard to healing the
sick, and the explicit directions given by James, the brother of
Christ in the flesh, to the church at large: “Is any sick among
you,” etc. They see that other directions in this same chapter are
held by the churches as thoroughly binding upon Christians of
to-day; yet here is one, which, although perfectly agreeing with the
teachings and practice of Christ and of the other apostles, is now
commonly ignored. Indeed, should anyone attempt to exactly follow
this direction of James, he would be considered a lunatic or a fool.
Carefully does James Rogers, Sr., consider this matter, with his two
sons, the one his logical young pastor and the other his practical,
level-headed young shipmaster. Turn it as they may, they cannot
escape the conclusion that if any of the New Testament injunctions
are binding upon the church, all of them must be, so far as human
knowledge can determine.

-----

Footnote 46:

Prayers an hour or more in length were common at that time.

Whether Mr. Hiscox or Mr. Hubbard agrees with them in the above
conclusions does not concern these conscientious students of
Scripture. Not so with Jonathan, the young lover. He is ready to
believe that a religion good enough for so conscientious and godly a
man as Mr. Samuel Hubbard is good enough for him. He judges that his
father and brothers are going too far, not only in this, but in
braving constant fines and imprisonments by so openly working upon
the first day of the week.

Evidently, Jonathan cannot remain with the little church of which
John is the pastor. Yet in dropping him, by his own desire, from
their devoted band, they merely leave him in the church of Newport,
of which they themselves are yet members (and will be for years to
come), although they have made their own church a somewhat distinct
and peculiar branch.[47] There is no sign of any break with the
beloved son and brother, in friendliness or affection (now or
afterwards), on account of this difference of opinion.

-----

Footnote 47:

Before long, the Newport church sends Mr. Gibson to live and
preach upon the Great Neck, to such Sabbatarians as hold merely
with the doctrines and customs of that church. Between this pastor
and John Rogers, pastor of the still newer departure, we find no
evidence of collision.

1678.

In March, 1678, Jonathan is married to Naomi; he brings her to the
Great Neck, to a handsome farm by the shore, provided for them by
his father, close bordering the home farms of his father and
brothers.[48] This is an affectionate family group, despite some few
differences in religious belief. It is evident enough to these
logicians that He who commanded men to love even their enemies,
allowed no lack of affection on the part of relatives, for any
cause.

-----

Footnote 48:

This farm is afterwards conveyed to Jonathan, with other valuable
property, by the will of his father.

When the church at Newport learns that the name of Jonathan Rogers
has been erased from the roll of the Connecticut church, because of
his more conservative views, representatives are sent to New London
to inquire into the matter. Here they learn of still another
departure of this church from their own, in that this church have
omitted the custom of oral family worship, because they find no
command for any prayers except those directly inspired by the
occasion and the Spirit, but direct condemnation of all formal
prayer, as tending to lip service rather than heart service, and to
be heard of men rather than of God.

What can the Newport church offer in protest, from scriptural
sources? To excommunicate persons for not following the teaching of
Christ is one thing; to excommunicate them for obeying such teaching
is another. The Newport church takes no action in these matters,
although evidently much perplexed by this conscientiously
independent branch of their denomination.

Accounts of the intolerance towards the Seventh Day sect in
Connecticut having led Peter Chamberlain[49] to write a letter
regarding this matter to Governor Leete of Connecticut, the latter
replies, in a studiously plausible manner, that the “authority” has
shown “all condescension imaginable to us” towards the New London
church (“Rogers and his of New London”), having given them
permission to worship on the seventh day, “provided they would
forbear to offend our conscience.”

-----

Footnote 49:

A prominent Seventh Day Baptist of England.

The letter of Governor Leete contains also the following ingenious
sophistry:—

“We may doubt (if they were governors in our stead) they would
tell us that their consciences would not suffer them to give us so
much liberty; but they would bear witness to the truth and beat
down idolatry as the old kings did in Scripture.”[50]

-----

Footnote 50:

This statement of Governor Leete has been quoted against the
Rogerenes again and again.

This speciously worded sentence is deserving of some reply. Suppose
the little band of Rogerenes to have attained the size and power
necessary for religious legislation, and to be able to do by their
opponents exactly as the latter have done by them. They must exact
of these the keeping of a seventh day Sabbath, demand aid for the
support of seventh day churches, and enact that none shall go to or
from their homes on the seventh day, except between said homes and
seventh day churches. In case any of these laws be broken, or any
dare speak out in first day churches against the tyranny and bigotry
of this seventh day legislation, such shall be fined, imprisoned,
scourged and set in the stocks. Could any person really suppose such
a course possible for these conscientious students of New Testament
teachings, who are not only opposed to any religious legislation,
but long before this date have given marked attention to the gentle,
peaceable doctrines of the Gospel, and listened with respect and
interest to the expositions of the Quakers, one of whom at the start
had found them “tender and loving”. Close upon this date, the
Rogerenes are found openly and zealously advocating the
non-resistant principles of the New Testament.

A fact not revealed by court records (but which must frequently
be taken into account in this history) is detected in this
letter of Governor Leete: “_if they would forbear to offend our
conscience_,” etc., “we would give them no offence in the
seventh day worshipping,” viz.: until such time as the Rogerenes
will forbear to labor upon the first day of the week, they must
expect, not only fines, imprisonment and stocks, but to have
their Saturday meetings broken up, according to the pleasure or
caprice of the authorities.[51] Constant liability to punishment
by the town authorities, for failure to pay fines for holding
their Saturday meetings, is one of the aggravating features of
this warfare. (All the power used by the magistrates “at their
own discretion” was exercised wholly in the dark, so far as any
records are concerned, and the periods of greatest severity in
its exercise can only be discerned by effects which can be
attributed to no other cause.)

-----

Footnote 51:

It will be remembered that the officers were themselves liable to
be fined if they failed to execute the Sunday laws, and that any
religious meetings whatever other than those prescribed by the
standing order were against the law, both those holding and those
attending such meetings being liable to fine or—in case of
non-payment—imprisonment.

Continual breaking up of their meetings, together with fines and
imprisonments for breach of the first day Sabbath—to say nothing of
the license allowed the ever mischievous and merciless mob to aid in
indignities—is at length beginning to tell on this people in a
manner quite opposite to that looked for by their opponents.

In June, 1678, James Rogers, Sr., and his sons, John and James,
enter the New London meeting-house and take their seats in the pews
set off to them, that of James, Sr., being, presumably, the highest
of all, since he is the largest taxpayer in the town. It may be
supposed by some that their spirits are at length subdued by the
three years of incessant persecutions and annoyances. But presently
they rise, one by one, in the midst of the service, and declare
their condemnation of a worship in the name of Christ, which upholds
persecution of those worshipping in the same name, and by the same
book, who, in this name and this book, find no command for a first
day Sabbath. To bring such arguments into the midst of a
Congregational meeting is more effectual than any violence of
constable or mob; yet, so far from being contrary to any command of
the Gospel, it is a direct maintenance of the command there set
forth to testify to the truth, regardless of consequences. At last,
these distressed people have devised a method by which even this
powerful ecclesiastical domination may be held in check.

From the church they are taken to prison, from prison to trial. They
are fined £5 each. Payment of the fine being refused, imprisonment
ensues, at their own expense,[52] for such a period as will as
effectually deplete their purses. Fines and imprisonments are to
them common experiences; but the church party understand that here,
at last, is an effective weapon in the hands of these people, with
blade of no lesser metal than the words of the Master himself.

-----

Footnote 52:

They were forced to pay for bed and board during imprisonment.
Sometimes a prisoner brought a bed of his own.

(For nearly five years after this countermove, no disturbance of
meeting and no serious molestation of the Rogerenes appears on
record. Evidently during that period the commissioners are not
displaying such zeal in breaking up seventh day meetings as was the
case previous to this appearance in the meeting-house.)

1679.

In October, 1679, there appears in the records of the General Court,
an effort on the part of Samuel Rogers to clear a stigma from the
reputation of his wife. She has been charged, by a man who has lost
some money, with having appropriated it, and the County Court, by
weight of circumstantial evidence, decided the case in favor of the
plaintiff. In the case before the General Court, at this date, a man
who has been imprisoned, on charge of being the true culprit, not
being appeared against by Samuel Rogers, is released. (During the
four years following this release, Samuel Rogers is at much expense
in endeavoring to establish his wife’s innocence. In 1683, he
presents such clear proof of the falsity of the charge that the
General Court grants him 300 acres of land, towards compensation for
time and money expended in clearing his wife’s name. In this
instance, Samuel Rogers makes an address to the court, the substance
of which does not appear on record.)

By this time there are a considerable number of Sabbatarians on the
Great Neck, some of whom have come from Rhode Island. Any who object
to the ultra movement of which John Rogers is the exponent, can
attend the meetings of the less radical Mr. Gibson. Both of these
pastors appear, however, to be working largely in unison, and they
are both arraigned before the County Court, in September of this
year, for servile labor on the first day of the week, together with
James Rogers, Sr., and Capt. James. John Rogers is fined 20_s._, and
the others 10_s._ each, and “the authority of the place” is desired
“to call these or any others to account” for future profanation of
the Sabbath, and to punish them according to law. On this occasion,
Mr. Gibson states that he usually works upon the first day of the
week. It is presumable that Jonathan Rogers also works, although not
conspicuously.

This is one of the spasmodic efforts to check this growing community
of nonconformists, by punishment of the bolder offenders, despite
the fact that the child is growing too sturdy and strategic to be
handled with perfect impunity.

In the latter part of this year, Mr. Hubbard, having come to the
Great Neck on a visit (probably to the home of his granddaughter,
Naomi Rogers), finds that Mr. James Rogers has recently been
severely injured, by a loaded cart having passed over his leg, below
the knee, for which injury he has allowed of no physician, “their
judgment being not to use any means.” A cart in these days being of
no delicate mechanism, it is not improbable that a physician would
have advised amputation. Mr. Rogers appears to be well on the way to
recovery at the date of Mr. Hubbard’s visit.

1682.

Save the moderate fine in September, 1679, for a single
non-observance of the first day of the week, which non-observance
has been occurring with every recurring Sunday, no recorded effort
to suppress the sect occurs from the date of the appearance of James
Rogers and his sons in the Congregational meeting-house, 1678, until
late in 1682, when William Gibson, John Rogers, James, Sr., Capt.
James, Joseph, Bathsheba and her husband, Richard Smith, are
presented before the County Court for “prophanation of the Sabbath,”
upon which occasion John Rogers declares that he worked the last
first day, the first day before, and the first day before that, and
so had done for several years. James, Sr., and Capt. James express
themselves to the same effect. Bathsheba and her husband “own” that
this is their practice also, and aver that, “by the help of God,”
they shall so continue.

The court, not only “for the offense” but for the “pride, obstinacy
and resolution” displayed in regard to continuance of the offense,
fines each of the offenders 30_s._ apiece,—except Joseph, whom they
fine 20_s._,—and to continue in prison until they shall give good
security for the payment of these fines. A bond of £20 each is also
required, for their good behavior for the future and abstinence from
all servile work on the first day of the week.

Here is the bringing up of a fast horse with dangerous suddenness.
But for the imprisonment, it is almost certain that the next Sabbath
would see another interruption of the Congregational services. As it
is, Joseph and Captain James break out of the prison, for which the
latter is fined £3 and the former £5. Undoubtedly they are speedily
apprehended and returned to prison. (It is entirely unlikely that
any of the fines are paid or bonds given; so that how these people
finally escape from durance, unless after very long imprisonment,
cannot be conceived.)

1683.

In this year occurs the death of Richard Smith, husband of
Bathsheba. Also the will of James Rogers is written, at his
dictation, by his son John. In this year James Rogers confirms to
his son Joseph all his lands at “Poquoig or Robin Hood’s Bay,”
within certain boundaries of fence, ledge and “dry pond.” This land
appears to be a part of the gift of land returned by Joseph to his
father, in 1670.

CHAPTER III.

1684.

A youth is growing up at Lyme, in regard to whom Matthew Griswold
and his daughter Elizabeth may well feel some concern, although it
afterwards appears that he is one of the brightest and manliest boys
in the colony. This is none other than John Rogers, Jr. For five
years past, his mother has been the wife of Peter Pratt, of Lyme,
who has a son by this marriage. That gentleman is doomed to suffer
no little trouble of conscience in regard to his marriage to the
wife of John Rogers, having himself come to doubt that any valid
reasons for the divorce ever existed.[53]

-----

Footnote 53:

From Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Peter Pratt, 2d.

In May, 1684, Matthew Griswold and his daughter petition the General
Court “for power to order and dispose of John Rogers, Jr., John
Rogers still continuing in his evil practises,” which “evil
practices” were set forth, in the previous permission of the court
regarding the continuance of the children of John Rogers with their
mother, in these words: “he being so hettridox in his opinion and
practice.” Their request is granted, the youth “to be apprenticed by
them to some honest man.”

John Rogers, Jr., is now barely ten years of age, and must be a
forward youth to be apprenticed so young, unless we suppose this a
mere device to put him under stricter control of his mother’s
family. He has surely heard nothing in favor of his father from
those among whom he has been reared, unless perhaps from his
stepfather. Yet neither mother nor grandparents can keep his young
heart from turning warmly towards the dauntless nonconformist at New
London.

If it has been hoped that, by another attempt at more heroic
treatment than the spasmodic onslaughts of the town magistrates, a
death-blow may yet be dealt to the Rogerenes, it must soon become
evident that such is unlikely to be the case. Not only so, but there
is danger that some of the principal members of the New London
Congregational church, and those among the most moneyed, may be won
over to the new persuasion. Samuel Beebe, Jr., eldest son of one of
the most substantial citizens, has recently married Elizabeth,
daughter of James Rogers, and is conforming to the faith and usages
of that family. Several from the Congregational church have recently
been rebaptized by the new sect.

1685.

The prospect of further injury to the New London church, as well as
to general church conformity in the colony, becomes such that, in
the spring of 1685, another resolute attempt is made by the New
London authorities, “by advice of the Governor and Council,” to put
a stop to the performance of servile labor on the first day of the
week, as also baptism—and rebaptism—by immersion.

On Sunday, April 12, 1685, several of the leading spirits are
imprisoned for working on the first day of the week. The court
records show that some of these escape, and enter the meeting-house
in time of public service, to denounce such persecution of followers
of the Lord, by those who pretend to worship in His name.

Two days after (April 14), John Rogers, Capt. James Rogers, Samuel
Beebe, Jr., and Joanna Way are complained of before the County Court
for servile work in general upon the first day of the week “and
particularly upon the last first day (12th), although they have and
may enjoy their persuasion undisturbed” (here is a revelation of the
fact that their Saturday meetings have not been interrupted of late,
and possibly not since the institution of the countermove in 1678);
also “for coming into town at several times to rebaptize persons”
and “for recently disturbing public worship,” and because “they go
on still to disturb and give disturbance.”[54]

-----

Footnote 54:

The failing health of James Rogers, Sr., is sufficient to account
for his not being arrested for servile work at this time.

-----

Upon examination, John Rogers is found guilty of servile work upon
that first day and on many others, “by his own confession,” and
“will yet go on to do it,” regardless of the law forbidding. The
court also finds him guilty of “disturbing God’s people in time of
public worship.” For all this, they order that he receive fifteen
lashes upon the naked body. He is then complained of for baptizing a
person contrary to law, “having no authority so to doe,” for which
he is fined £5.

Captain James is complained of for servile work, “by his own
confession,” that he worked on the last Sunday, “and would doe it
again.” Also he came into the meeting-house, in time of worship,
“where he behaved himself in a frantick manner to the amazing of
some and causing some women to swounde away,” for which he is to
have fifteen lashes on the naked body. He is also fined £5 for
baptizing a negro woman.

Samuel Beebe is complained of for work on the first day and for
declaring that he will continue in that practice as long as he
lives. He also is to receive fifteen lashes on the naked body and to
pay a fine of £5, although he is charged neither with disturbance of
meeting nor with baptizing. Why this double punishment, unless
because this young man has recently left the Congregational church
to join the nonconformists? Such punishment may intimidate others
who are thus inclined. That “discretion” granted the judges appears
very prominent in this case.

Joanna Way, for servile work, for declaring that she will still
continue in that practice, and for giving disturbance in the
meeting-house, is sentenced to receive fifteen lashes on the naked
body.

Here we find four persons, one of them a woman, receiving fifteen
lashes each on the naked body for working on the first day, while
keeping the seventh day, and for venturing the one sure mode of
holding their persecutors in check.

In this disturbance of the meeting, Capt. James Rogers is the only
one accounted guilty of “amazing” the congregation and causing women
to “swounde.” He is not charged with having attempted any violence
in the church, and has before this become a convert to the peaceable
doctrines of the Quakers. The court record gives no hint of the
words used on this occasion by Captain James, or why the women were
induced to “swounde.”[55]

-----

Footnote 55:

It will later be seen that the custom, on such occasions, of
ejecting disturbers of meeting from the church in a violent
manner, was calculated to create a general excitement among the
spectators.

-----

Despite the £5 fine, in less than two months thereafter (June) John
Rogers is complained of for baptizing, found guilty, “on his own
confession,” and again fined £5.

(Although the Rogerenes continue steadfastly and openly to
perform servile labor on the first day of the week, as well as
to baptize, there appears no further arraignment before the
court for these causes for a good while to come; the entrance
into the meeting-house, April 12, 1685, proving, like the
entrance of 1678, an effectual check upon their enemies.)

About the first of June of this same year, messengers are sent to
New London from the Sabbatarian church at Newport, “to declare
against two or more of them that were of us who are declined to
Quakerism, of whom be thou aware, for by their principles they will
travel by land and by sea to make disciples, yea sorry ones too.
Their names are John and James Rogers and one Donham.”[56] What have
these two young men been doing now? They have ventured to adopt and
to preach the principle of non-resistance, and so, by this
long-forward step, have “declined to Quakerism.” This adoption of
peace principles appears, in the estimation of the gentle and
saintly Mr. Hubbard,—recorder of the above bulletin,—to have
completed their downfall. He sufficiently expresses the attitude of
the Newport church towards Quakers and their non-resistant
principles. John and James Rogers have not been to the Quakers to
learn these principles, but have taken them directly from the New
Testament, where the Quakers themselves found them.

-----

Footnote 56:

That no actual relapse to Quakerism had occurred at the time
should have been evident from the fact that John Rogers is, even
in this very month of June, baptizing, and undoubtedly as usual
administering the Lord’s Supper, ordinances to which the Quakers
were entirely opposed.

-----

That John and James have been baptizing persons in the town, and
probably at the very mill cove where John, over seven years before,
baptized his sister-in-law, is apparent. Captain James is not only
baptizing, but also, as shown by Mr. Hubbard’s letter, preaching and
proselyting. Mr. Hubbard does not complain of his baptizing or
preaching, by which it appears that he did these in Sabbatarian
order, but only of his preaching a Quaker doctrine. The names of
John and Captain James still remain on the roll of membership of the
Newport church. To drop them for preaching the pacific principles of
the Gospel is no easier than to drop them for having accepted the
principle of healing by prayer and faith as set forth in that
Gospel.

In this year, Elizabeth, daughter of John Rogers, now fourteen years
of age, is, at her own request, allowed by her mother and the
Griswolds to return to her father; she who left him a child of three
years. She is still the only daughter of her mother, and, by
affirmation of both her brothers, John Rogers, 2d, and Peter
Pratt,[57] a most lovable character.

-----

Footnote 57:

See “Prey Taken from the Strong,” and Reply to same by John
Rogers, 2d.

-----

Her free committal of this girl child to the care and training of
John Rogers, gives proof conclusive that “Elizabeth, daughter of
Matthew Griswold,” however she may disapprove of her former
husband’s religious course, knows well of the uprightness of his
character and the kindness of his heart.

1687.

In December, 1687, “Elizabeth, former wife of John Rogers,” resigns
her claim to Mamacock, on condition of certain payments, in
instalments, signing herself, “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew
Griswold.”—(_New London Records._)

1688.

James Rogers, Sr., is in declining health and fast nearing the end.
November 17, 1687, he was unable to sign a deed of exchange of land.
It was witnessed as his act by his sons John and James.
Administration on his estate commences September, 1688. He leaves a
large estate to his children, all of whom have received bountiful
gifts from him in his lifetime, and all of whom are intelligent,
conscientious, temperate and industrious.

While James Rogers was leading the busy life of a man of varied
interests, worldly honor for his children must have been as much a
stimulus as the accumulation for their sakes of money and of lands.
That honor was relinquished in the cause which he and his espoused.

The esteem in which this man and his wife have been held is shown,
among other things, by the failure of the Congregational church to
expel them. In fact, where could that church lay a finger upon any
violation, on the part of these members, of the teachings of Him in
whose name that church was founded? Their names remain on the roll
of Congregational church members. Yet by brethren in that church
they have been scorned and injured, and their children have been
lashed for venturing to follow with exactness New Testament precepts
and examples.

In trouble and sorrow, under the despotism that had assumed the very
authority of that Lord whom he himself had learned to trust so
unreservedly, the mortal life of James Rogers approached its close.
Yet, wondrously upheld by faith in God the Father, Christ the
Saviour, and the presence of that Comforter which had been promised
to all true believers, he was enabled to look far beyond all earthly
gain or losses, all worldly disappointment and the injustice and
uncharitableness of men, to the eternal blessings and rewards of
heaven. Although religious preambles to wills are not unusual at
this period, they are generally of a set form, with slight
variations; but that which James Rogers dictated, to his son John,
was an evident expression of his religious faith couched in his own
words: “I do know and see that my name is written in the book of
life.”[58]

-----

Footnote 58:

See Part I, Chap. I. For full preamble, see “James Rogers and His
Descendants,” by J. S. Rogers, Boston.

-----

A noticeable feature of this will is the evidently anxious intention
of the testator that the court shall have as little as possible to
do with the settlement of his estate, and that his children shall
carefully avoid any litigation concerning it. (Part I, Chap. I.)

Five years elapsed between the writing of the will and the decease
of the testator; and in the meantime a codicil was attached to it.

[It is certainly very lamentable that even one of the children of
James Rogers considered it necessary to set aside the last request
of so loving and generous a father, by entering upon any suit at law
in regard to the settlement of his estate, and this after the first
so amicable agreement on the part of each to fully abide by the
terms of the will. But it is still more lamentable that, through
lack of careful examination into the facts of the case, those
children who positively refrained from the slightest action contrary
to this request of their father, should be included in the sweeping
statement of the New London historian (_Miss Caulkins_): “his
children, notwithstanding, engaged in long and acrimonious
contention regarding boundaries, in the course of which earthly
judges were often obliged to interfere and enforce settlement.”[59]

-----

Footnote 59:

In point of fact, only one of the children made any complaint
regarding boundaries; but this complaint resulted in a suit that
was carried through several courts. Undoubtedly, by a cursory view
of this frequently appearing suit and also that of Samuel Beebe,
on the records, Miss Caulkins judged that there was a general
“contention.” Rev. Mr. Blake, in his Church History—New London
Congregational—in adopting this error of Miss Caulkins, has
rendered it that “the children” of James Rogers “engaged in bitter
controversies” over his estate.

-----

The including of all the children in this statement is not its only
error; “earthly judges” being in no way “obliged to interfere” or
“enforce,” otherwise than by carrying on in the usual manner the
business presented to the court.

Because of this erroneous statement, often quoted by other
historians, it will be necessary to burden this work with exact note
of every case in which any child of James Rogers has any connection
with court dealings regarding the settlement of this estate, which
settlement, on account of the longevity of the widow, extends over a
long period, evidently much longer than was anticipated by the
testator, she having been in an impaired condition for some time
prior to his decease. This impairment appears to have been more of a
mental than physical character, however, and of an intermittent
description, indicating whole or partial recovery at intervals. When
the intense strain upon mind and heart which this wife and mother
must have endured ever since 1674 is considered, one cannot but
suspect this to be the cause of an impairment of her mental powers
while she still retained so much recuperative vigor even to unusual
longevity.]

For some years previous to the date of his death, the home farm of
James Rogers was upon that beautiful portion of the shore lands of
the Great Neck called Goshen, and here his widow continues to
reside. His son Jonathan’s place is adjoining on the south. Captain
James lives in the same vicinity, and is now to have the Goshen farm
lands, under the will. Although Bathsheba has a farm in this
locality, received from her father, she appears to be living—with
her children—at her mother’s, and her brother John is there also,
with a life right in the house, under the will. Samuel Beebe resides
in the same neighborhood, and Joseph at his Bruen place, near by, on
Robin Hood’s Bay.

September 15, 1688, the widow executes a deed of trust (New London
Probate Records) giving to her son John and daughter Bathsheba the
oversight and management of the entire estate of her husband (it
having been left subject to her needs for her lifetime), “even my
whole interest,” fully agreeing to the complete execution of her
husband’s will, as relating to herself, by these two children,
according to the terms of the codicil, which gives the entire estate
into their hands during the lifetime of the widow. Her son-in-law,
Samuel Beebe, appears to be the justice on this occasion. Two
persons, not of the family, testify to her “being apparently in her
right mind,” and “speaking very reasonably.” All the children have
previously entered into an agreement to carry out the plan of their
father, as relates to settlement out of court, by executorship of
John and his guardianship, with Bathsheba, of their mother.

In this year Peter Pratt, second husband of Elizabeth Griswold, dies
at Lyme, leaving her with a son who bears his name.

In this year also, Elizabeth, daughter of John Rogers, now seventeen
years of age, is married, at her father’s home, to a young man named
Stephen Prentis, the son of a principal planter of New London.[60]

-----

Footnote 60:

Stephen Prentis eventually became one of the prominent and wealthy
citizens of the place, a holder of local and colonial offices,
captain of a train band, attorney and also a farmer on a large
scale. He was a member of the Congregational church through life,
as was also his wife. Their home farm was near what is now Mill
Stone Point.

-----

John Rogers, Jr., is permitted by his mother to attend the wedding
of his sister. He is now, for the first time, with his father and
his father’s family friends. It is an excellent opportunity for the
boy of fourteen to make the acquaintance and judge of the characters
of these relatives for himself. The result is that he elects to
remain with his father, and soon obtains his mother’s permission to
do so.[61] Thus ends the effort to keep the grandchildren of Mr.
Matthew Griswold from the contaminating influence of John Rogers.

-----

Footnote 61:

Miss Caulkins states that his mother afterwards attempted to
secure his return to her, but could not succeed in overcoming his
determination to remain with his father. The evidence of this has
escaped our observation.

-----

Account of the year 1688 should not close without mention of the
appearance on this scene of a young dignitary well calculated to
rekindle any flickering embers on either side of this controversy.
Rev. Mr. Bradstreet having died, a new minister has been hired in
the person of Gurdon Saltonstall, a young man inheriting the
aristocratic and autocratic spirit of a family of rank and wealth
without the gentler and more liberal qualities that adorned the
character of his ancestor, Sir Richard Saltonstall. Although only
twenty-two years of age, he is already a rigid, uncompromising
ecclesiastic, holding the authority and prestige of the
Congregational church paramount, even beyond the ordinary
acceptation of the time.

There is such general opposition to church taxation in the community
at this very time, that an attempt has recently been made to raise
funds for the Congregational church by subscription, but the amount
subscribed having proved very inadequate, the old method is
continued.—(_Caulkins._) This shows that Congregationalism in this
town is, at the best, a yoke imposed upon a majority by a powerful
minority. The effort, as well as the failure, to raise church money
by subscription is ominous. Should such popular indifference
continue, what may not befall the true church, with “hettridoxy” let
loose in the land and Rhode Islandisms further overrunning the
Colony?

It cannot be long before John Rogers and the zealous young advocate
of Congregational rule are carefully observing and measuring each
other. Fifty years ago, Congregationalist (“Independent”) leaders
cropped their hair close to their heads and eschewed fine clothing;
now, forsooth, nothing is too good for them, and their curling locks
(wigs) are more conspicuous than those of the Cavaliers with whom
Cromwell’s Roundheads fought to the death. This young man in fine
ministerial garb, and with flowing wig, whom they have called to New
London to preach the unworldly Gospel of Jesus Christ, is seemingly
so immature that John Rogers, the man of forty, can afford to hold
his peace for a space, while he goes his way, working upon the first
day of the week and resting and preaching upon the seventh. The
young minister, being on trial himself, awaiting ordination, cannot
for some time to come venture very conspicuously on the war-path.

1690.

In 1690, extensive improvements are made in the Congregational
church meeting-house. The interior is furnished with the approved
style of pews, which are, as usual, assigned to the inhabitants of
the town, those paying the highest rates having the highest seats.
Accordingly, John Rogers and his brothers, and all the other Seventh
Day people, have seats assigned them. In addition to the minister’s
rates, they are assessed for these church improvements, which
include a new bell, that all may be in good style for the ordination
of Mr. Saltonstall. Of course, John Rogers and his followers do not
pay these “rates”; but their cattle and other goods are seized and
sold at auction, none of the extra proceeds being returned to them.
As yet, however, there is no disturbance, although, in addition to
the new rates, the town magistrates are imposing fines and
inflicting punishments, from time to time, on the seventh day
observers, “at their discretion.” (The terms of imprisonment of John
Rogers aggregated over fifteen years, a very much longer time than
the total recorded on court records. This indicates an extraordinary
exercise of the delegated power accorded to local officials in his
case.[62])

-----

Footnote 62:

His son states (see Part I) that his imprisonments amounted to
one-third of his life after his conversion, viz.: one-third of the
period between 1674 and 1721.

-----

While the period of calm (upon the court records) since the last
(and second) entry into the meeting-house, in 1685, is still
continuing, and before the young ecclesiastic is in a position to
begin his attack, let us take a general glance at the Rogers family,
and first at the enterprising and wealthy Samuel Rogers, allied by
marriage to some of the most prominent Congregational church members
in the colony, yet himself appearing to cultivate no intimate
association with the New London church, the reason for which may
well be divined. He is now making active preparations for leaving
New London altogether, as soon as his son Samuel is old enough to
assume control of the bakery, having chosen for his future home a
large tract of land in the romantic wilds of Mohegan (New London
“North Parish,”—now Montville). He is a great favorite with the
Mohegan chief, Owaneco, son of Uncas. The popularity of Samuel
Rogers with the Indians is but one of many indications of the
amiable and conciliatory character of this man. His simply standing
aloof from the church against whose autocratic dictum his father and
brothers judged it their duty to so strenuously rebel is
characteristic of the man.

On the Great Neck, Jonathan Rogers and his wife, and those of their
particular persuasion, are quietly holding their meetings on
Saturday, paying their Congregational church rates with regularity,
however unwillingly, and working on the first day in no very
noticeable manner. There is frequent interchange of visits between
them and the many relatives and friends of Naomi in Newport and
Westerly.

Although Captain James and wife and Joseph and his wife seem to be
adhering faithfully to the radical party, there are growing up in
their family several young dissenters from the Seventh Day cause.

Samuel Beebe and his wife Elizabeth remain firm in the Sabbatarian
faith.

John Rogers, Jr., although brought up in the house of Mr. Matthew
Griswold and kept carefully from all Rogers contamination, works on
the days upon which his father works, rests on the day when his
father rests, and in all other ways follows his father’s lead.

Bathsheba Smith ardently adheres to the religious departure
instituted by her father and her brothers. Her son, James Smith, is
fifteen years of age at this date. He and his cousin John, Jr., are
well agreed to follow on in the faith. Among the children of his
aunt Bathsheba there is one dearest of all to John, Jr.; this is
Bathsheba Smith the younger.

Others of the third generation of Rogerses are now old enough to
begin to observe, reason and choose for themselves. It is not
surprising if, by this time, quite a number of Rogers lads, of the
James and Joseph families, frequently enter the Congregational
church, with other young people, and sit in the pews assigned to
their fathers. The principles of John Rogers, Captain James and
others of their persuasion would prevent the issue of any command
tending to interfere with individual judgment and action in such
matters, whatever the anxious attempt to instill strictly scriptural
opinions and conduct, by precept and example.

1691.

Preparations for the ordination of the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall being
completed, that event transpires, November, 1691. About a month
after this ceremony, occurs the first tilt on record between John
Rogers and the ecclesiastic. In this instance, the gauntlet is
thrown by the dissenter, in the shape of a wig, on the occasion of a
“Contribution to the Ministry.”[63]

-----

Footnote 63:

Contributions of articles, even of clothing, for the poor, for the
minister or for church adornment, and other purposes, were common
in those days; and for such donations there was a large box, quite
stationary, and usually near the pulpit. This appears not to have
been known to Miss Caulkins, who supposes a box to have been
passed around, as the box for money contributions of later times.

-----

John Rogers has, apparently, beheld the magisterial headgear of the
young minister as long as he feels called upon to do so without some
expression of dissent regarding such an unwarrantable sign of
Christian ostentation. The unwelcome gift is a peaceable yet
significant remonstrance from the leader of a sect determined from
the outset to fearlessly express disapproval of any assumption of
practices or doctrines in the name of the Christian religion that
are foreign to the teachings and example of Christ. One would think
that both minister and congregation might be thankful that the
additional “rates” (such as cattle and other goods beyond all
reason) forcibly taken from the dissenters to fit the Congregational
church edifice for its elegant, wigged minister had not brought a
delegation of Rogerenes to the meeting-house, to orally complain of
being forced to assist in this ordination.

That John Rogers so graciously makes the apology, which is speedily
demanded of him for this token of dissent, and assents to its
immortalization upon the town records, is explainable in no other
way than because it gives him an opportunity of publicly emphasizing
the gift and his reasons therefor. The covertly facetious wording of
this Apology, amounting in short to a full re-expression of the
donor’s sentiments in durable form, is a refreshing relief amid all
the tragedy of this man’s life.[64]

-----

Footnote 64:

For Apology, see Part I, Chap. I.

-----

After the ordination of Mr. Saltonstall, his influence in this
community, as a clergyman of unusual learning and ability, is fully
established. He makes many friends both in and out of the colony, as
a staunch and talented advocate of Congregational church rule,
especially among the clergy, which is an element of great influence
in the General Court, and other courts as well. He will soon be in a
position to wreak upon John Rogers dire vengeance, not only for the
wig, but for that general nonconformity so likely to disturb the
ecclesiastical polity which it is his purpose to vigorously and
uncompromisingly maintain.

In this year “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” marries
Matthew Beckwith of Lyme, a man much older than herself, and eleven
years the senior of her former husband, John Rogers.

CHAPTER IV.

1691.

The children of James Rogers having petitioned the General Court to
divide their father’s estate according to his will,—which was
entered on record with their agreement thereto,—certain persons are
now appointed to make this division. At the same time, the court
“desire John Rogers and Bathsheba Smith doe take the part doth
belong to widow Rogers under their care and dispose that a suitable
maintainance for her, etc.”

1692.

In July, 1692, there is copied upon the land records a disposition
by the widow of James Rogers of certain alleged rights in her
husband’s estate, viz.: such rights as would have been hers by the
will had there been no codicil thereto. In this document she claims
a certain thirteen acres of land on the Great Neck[65] to dispose of
as she “sees fit,” also all “moveables” left by her husband, with
the exception of £10 willed therefrom to her daughter Elizabeth
Beebe. She states that she has already sold one-half of this
thirteen acres to her son-in-law, Samuel Beebe. By this singular
document, she not only completely ignores the codicil to her
husband’s will (already acknowledged by herself, by the other heirs
and by the probate court), but her recorded deed of trust, by which,
in 1688, she placed her entire life interest in the estate in charge
of John and Bathsheba, whose guardianship under the will had also,
by agreement of all the children, been confirmed by the General
Court.

-----

Footnote 65:

This thirteen acres is called a “grant to Robert Hempstead” “in
the first division.” It is probably the lot belonging to the house
she occupies, viz.: the home lot of her husband. It is a part of
the land willed to Captain James.

-----

In the month previous to this singular act of the widow, the
committee appointed by the court, to divide the estate according
to the will, announced their division, adding “when John and
Bathsheba shall pay out of the moveable estate[66] to Eliz. Beebe
the sum of £10,” “if the widow so order,” the remainder of the
estate, real and personal, shall “remain under the care and
management of John and Bathsheba during their mother’s life for
her honorable maintainance,” also that, after decease of the
widow, the real estate and what shall remain of the personal
estate be disposed of according to the will of the testator.

-----

Footnote 66:

It afterwards appears that this movable estate included a number
of young slaves, commonly called “servants.”

-----

There was a distinct blunder in the words “if the widow so order”
regarding the payment of the £10; since the will distinctly says
that the £10 are to be paid by the widow to Elizabeth (“out of the
moveables”) “if she sees good, with the advice of my son John,” and
the codicil makes no change in regard to this clause. The report of
the committee omits the advice of John in this matter, which
omission probably seemed not very important to any one at the time.
(It will later appear that serious results ensue from this
apparently slight and inadvertent court error. See Chapter VII.)

About this time, the widow gives to Elizabeth Beebe (as afterwards
appears) the estimate of the £10, in the shape of a little colored
girl named Joan, who is classed in the movable estate, and she does
this without “the consent of my son John.” In so doing, she not only
ignores the will of her husband regarding the advice of John, but
also the erroneous wording of the committee’s report that this £10
is to be paid by John and Bathsheba, at her direction. Had she but
permitted these guardians and executors to pay the £10, Joan would
not have figured in the transaction, it being no part of the
intention of John and Bathsheba (as will later appear) that any of
their father’s slaves should be sold or given away to remain in
lifelong bondage. The two executors and guardians make no complaint
to the court of these irregular actions on the part of their mother,
or of the wrong wording of the recent report of the committee (nor
shall we in any instance find them deviating by a hair’s breadth
from the request of their father to make no appeal regarding his
estate to earthly judges, although such appeal at this early stage
would have saved incalculable trouble hereafter). However, Joan is
not given over by them to Elizabeth Beebe.[67]

-----

Footnote 67:

It appears it was the intention of the widow that Joan should not
be transferred to Elizabeth until after her own decease; since we
do not find Samuel Beebe claiming and demanding her until some
time after that event, although it appears evident that this gift
was designated by the widow at about this time, 1692.

-----

Another part of the erratic document of the widow is that after her
death all the “moveables” shall be divided between her son Jonathan
and her daughter Elizabeth, again totally ignoring the codicil of
the will, which speaks only of John, Bathsheba and Captain James as
being concerned in the division of “the moveables” after her death,
except that Elizabeth is to have “three cows.”[68]

-----

Footnote 68:

By the codicil John and Bathsheba are first to take what they wish
of “the things about the house,” the other movables “whatsoever”
to be divided by John, Bathsheba and James among themselves.

-----

Although the widow has evidently the encouragement and assistance of
Samuel Beebe in this proceeding, there is no appearance of any
complicity on the part of Jonathan, who exactly conforms to the
terms of the will and the executorship of John. Captain James makes
no complaint to the court of the fact that Samuel Beebe is already
claiming, under this procedure of the widow, a piece of land which
is a part of the farm given to himself by the will, for which he is
paying rent to his mother by order of the executor. He quietly makes
a temporary sale of the thirteen acres to an attorney, of which sale
Samuel Beebe complains (New London Records), but evidently in vain.

This is but the beginning of annoyances which certain children of
James Rogers are to endure, on account of their determination not to
disobey their father’s request in regard to any appeal to “earthly
judges.” Little could the testator foresee that his attempt to keep
his estate out of the court would be the very means of litigation,
through the vagaries of his mentally diseased widow, unchecked by
appeal to the court on the one hand, and encouraged by interested
parties on the other.

1693.

Before the close of the year 1693, John Rogers is fined £4 for
entertaining two Quakers at his house “for a month or more.” He has
(by the testimony of his son, see Part I) no fellowship with these
men, except as regards his concurrence in the doctrine of
non-resistance and some few other particulars. For non-payment of
this fine; he is in prison (and remains there well into the next
year). This is but the beginning of more stringent measures than
have prevailed since the disturbance of the Congregational meeting
in 1685, which seems to have won a seven year’s respite from severe
persecution.

As yet, the ambitious young minister, Gurdon Saltonstall, appears to
have found no good opportunity for attempting to suppress this
intractable man. But if John Rogers is to be prevented from
continuing to scatter, broadcast, doctrines so subversive to a state
church, he should be checked without further delay. In this lapse of
severer and more public discipline on the part of the authorities,
he has been gathering more converts from the Congregational fold,
and has even grown so bold as to come into the very heart of the
town to preach his obnoxious doctrines. Prominent citizens, who
ought to be above countenancing him, are not only among his hearers,
but among his converts.

Samuel Fox, a member of the Congregational church and one of the
most prosperous business men of the place, has recently married the
widow Bathsheba Smith and adopted her faith. He may be very
influential in gaining more such followers, unless deterrent
measures are soon taken. How long could the Congregational church be
maintained, on its present footing, if such a new birth as this man
describes should be required before admission; aye, if any
conversion other than turning from, or avoidance of, immoral
practices be generally insisted upon? Moreover, this ranting against
“hireling ministers” is of itself calculated to weaken and destroy a
capable and orderly ministry, to say nothing of baptism by
immersion, administering the communion in the evening (after the
example of Christ), the nonsensical doctrine of non-resistance, and
the rest of this man’s fanatical notions, all of which, strange to
say, are attracting favorable attention in intelligent quarters.
There is Mr. Thomas Young, for instance, a man of the highest
respectability, and allied to some of the best families in the
church and the place; it is even understood that John Rogers is to
be invited to preach at his house.

But what shall be done with the man? Despite the regular fine of £5,
he goes right on with his baptisms and rebaptisms, sometimes on the
very day he is released from imprisonment on this account. Fines and
imprisonments for other offenses, also, hold him in check only so
long as he is in prison. Moreover, the grand jurymen and other
officials have become very indulgent regarding his offenses; certain
of them appear to connive in leaving him undisturbed in his defiance
of ecclesiastical laws. By what means can he be kept in durance long
enough to lose his singular and growing popularity; or how can he be
put out of sight and hearing altogether?

At least one aspect is encouraging; some of the Rogers young people
are inclining towards the Congregational church, in spite of their
elders. James, Jr., (son of Captain James), is evidently not in
sympathy with the family departure. Let us make much of this young
man; he seems a right sensible fellow. Joseph’s sons, with the
exception of James (the eldest), appear to be well inclined also. In
fact, John Rogers himself is the only one of the original dissenters
who is causing any very serious disturbance nowadays. Something of
this kind is likely enough to be passing in the mind of Mr.
Saltonstall.

In this year, 1693, another difficulty occurs regarding the
settlement of the James Rogers estate. The persons appointed to
divide the land among the children according to the terms of the
will have given Jonathan a farm, “with house thereon,” which was
included in the lands given to Joseph by his father in 1666. Joseph
(as has been shown) resigned all of this gift of land to his father
in 1670, but the latter redeeded the most (or supposedly all) of it
back to him in 1683. Joseph appears to have understood that this
farm was included in the second deed of gift, and it is probable
that his father supposed it to have been thus included, by the terms
of the deed. Upon examination, however, the committee have decided
that this farm remains a part of the estate of the testator, and, by
the terms of the will regarding the division of the residue of land
between James and Jonathan, it falls to Jonathan. Naturally,
Jonathan has nothing to do but to take what is accorded to him by
the decision of those to whom the division has been intrusted, who
have divided it to the best of their knowledge and ability. Although
Joseph is in much the same position, acquiescence in his case is far
less easy. He does not find any fault with the will, but simply
claims this farm as his own by the deed of gift of his father, and
arbiters are appointed to decide the matter. These men appear to
labor under no small difficulty in concluding to which of the two
the farm should really belong, but finally decide in favor of
Jonathan. Joseph is unwilling to abide by this decision, asserting
that some of the evidence on the other side has not been of a fair
character.[69] Consequently the case is reopened, with considerable
favor shown, on the part of the court, to the representations of
Joseph. Jonathan’s part in the case is to present evidence in favor
of his right to the property awarded to him; so that he cannot be
said to have gone to law in the matter.

-----

Footnote 69:

This may refer in part to his mother’s deposition, which figured
in the evidence before the arbiters to the effect that Joseph had
“not just cause to molest Jonathan.”

-----

(This attempt of Joseph to regain a farm he had supposed to be his
own, is the sole “contention regarding boundaries,” which was
ascribed by Miss Caulkins to the “children.” It in no way concerns
the executor, who had no part whatever in designating the boundaries
or dividing the land. Joseph appears to have hesitated at first to
make any move in the matter; the opening protest was made in 1692 by
his wife, in regard to the deed by which her husband returned to his
father (in 1670) the first gift of land.[70])

-----

Footnote 70:

This protest by Joseph’s wife is recorded on the New London land
records, under the deed of gift of 1670.

-----

1694.

The time is now come for the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall to prove what
he can do, to stay the progress of this nonconformist movement under
the masterly leadership of John Rogers. It is not his intention to
confine his efforts to the ineffectual methods heretofore employed,
the most public of which have been presentation of leading Rogerenes
before the County Court, a procedure that, for some reason (at this
date quite obscure), is sure to provoke the dreaded countermove,
which has each time accomplished so much for the nonconformists.

The brilliant plan finally matured by Mr. Saltonstall is to capture
John Rogers and imprison him at a distance from New London. As in
many another contest, the fall of the leader is the death of the
cause, or the longer he can be separated from his followers the more
will their cause be weakened and the greater the check to his
proselyting career, which is just now so alarmingly in the
ascendant. There are many dignitaries who share such sentiments with
Mr. Saltonstall. A satisfactory plan being matured, it can readily
be carried out. Such a plan (which is gradually disclosed in the
sequence of events) may be outlined as follows:

For the first part of the program, resort will be had to the old
apprehension for servile labor, with arraignment before the County
Court. It is presumable, according to precedent, that this will be
sufficient to bring out the countermove, which will result in a
large fine—with larger bond for good behavior—payment of which being
refused, as it undoubtedly will be, the bird will be fully secured
in its first cage.

The second part of the plan is, having caught John Rogers in some
expression of doctrine or sentiment that will furnish ground for his
arrest as a preacher of an unwarrantable sort, to secure his trial
before the Superior Court, with adverse verdict and imprisonment in
Hartford jail.

According to such a plan, John Rogers will receive a double dose
that may prove effectual. The two parts of this plan take place as
nearly together as possible, the first standing in abeyance until
evidence is secured for the second procedure. This evidence is
obtained late in the month of February, 1694, Saturday the 24th.

Upon this date, John Rogers is holding a meeting in town, in the
house of Mr. Thomas Young,[71] a gentleman nearly allied, as has
been said, to some of the principal members of the Congregational
church, and among them to the Christophers family, several of which
family (notably Christopher and John) are very intimate friends of
Mr. Saltonstall, as well as prominent officials of New London. The
large number gathered to listen to this discourse indicates the
drawing power of the speaker. Some of his own Society are present,
including his son John. It need scarcely be said that the having
interested Mr. Thomas Young so seriously is one of the offenses of
which John Rogers is now conspicuously guilty.[71] John
Christophers, Daniel Wetherell (another New London official and
friend of Mr. Saltonstall) and Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall enter this
meeting for a sinister purpose.[72]

-----

Footnote 71:

Mr. Thomas Young must have been an earnest seeker after truth, or
he would not have braved the opposition of his Congregational
friends by opening his house to a meeting of the Rogerenes. He
appears to have been a son, or grandson, of Rev. John Young, of
Southold, L.I., a Puritan of so true a stamp that he was forbidden
to embark for America. Evidently New London did not prove a
satisfactory residence for Mr. Thomas Young, since he eventually
removed to Southold, where his friendship with John Rogers
continued, as also after his later removal to Oyster Bay, L.I.

Footnote 72:

For record evidence, see Chapter V.

-----

The subject selected by John Rogers for his discourse on this
occasion is one particularly relating to Rogerene dissent; it is the
necessity of a new birth and the wonderful changes wrought in body
and soul by that divine miracle.[73] That only by such an operation
of the Holy Spirit can a man become in truth one with Christ, is the
burden of the theme. Not only has the speaker wealth of scriptural
foundation for this discourse, but by his own conversion, so sudden
and so powerful, he has internal evidence of the mysterious change
set forth in the New Testament. No subject could better bring out
the fervor and eloquence of the man. He declares that the body of an
unregenerate person is a body of Satan, Satan having his abode
therein, and that the body of a regenerate person is a body of
Christ, Christ dwelling in such a body. (See account of his son,
Part I, Chapter II.)

-----

Footnote 73:

Apparently the Scripture expounded on this occasion was Romans
viii.

-----

It is (and is to be) a conspicuous feature of Mr. Saltonstall’s
ministry that no experience of this kind is to be considered
necessary to church membership; such a test as this would never
allow of that great ingathering to the state church which he desires
to see firmly established and maintained.

The Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall and his accomplices do not listen to
this discourse in concealment from the speaker, however they may
stand apart from the hearers that gather cordially about the
remarkable man in their midst. That these three men are his enemies,
none know better than the keen-eyed man who beholds them there; but
it may well be judged that their presence gives no tremor to his
heart or his voice, but, the rather, adds nerve and emphasis.

Mr. Saltonstall, watching his opportunity, and holding the attention
of his accomplices, inquires of the speaker:

“Will you say that your body is the body of Christ?”

The reply of John Rogers shows the quick wit of the man. He
evidently perceives the intention to entrap him, and is, moreover,
unwilling to allow the expression, which he has been using in a
general way, to bear this bald, personal application, with its
intended insinuation of irreverence.

“Yes, I do affirm that this human body (bringing his hand against
his breast) is Christ’s body; for Christ has purchased it with His
precious blood, and I am not my own, for I am bought with a price.”
(See account of his son, Part I, Chapter II.)

Even thus ingeniously and reverently the speaker adheres to his
affirmation that the body of a man as well as his soul belongs after
regeneration to Christ and is animated by Him.

It was a reply that turned the edge of the enemy’s sarcasm and left
the speaker free to continue his discourse in no way disconcerted by
the trick. He now goes on to picture, with glowing face and words,
the brotherhood into which the regenerate man enters; that of
Christ, the firstborn of many brethren, and of the disciples and
apostles. The light upon his face as he speaks may well border upon
a smile, and his voice take on an exultant tone (to be called on the
court record “a laughing and a flouting way”). (See Chapter V.)

From this perfectly Scriptural discourse, the spies now manage to
construct a charge of blasphemy, which, under good management and by
powerful influence, will aid in sending this man to Hartford prison.
Red tape, however, is necessary, before this action can be brought.
In the meantime, trial will be made of the other portion of the
plot, which will imprison him at once in New London jail.

The very next day (Sunday, February 25, 1694), John Rogers is
arrested for “carting boards,” and Samuel Fox “for catching eels on
that holy day.” Both are arraigned before the County Court now in
session. It is the first arraignment of this kind since 1685. During
till these nine years, John Rogers and all of his Society have been
working upon the first day of the week, as for the ten years
previous to 1685. If the countermove now takes place, according to
the plan indicated, John Rogers steps directly into the trap that
has been set for him. That he does step into it is certain; that he
does it without a clear understanding of the situation is by no
means to be inferred. While he may not have counted upon so deeply
laid a scheme as that which is shortly to develop, yet he is
evidently conscious of a situation which renders it necessary that
he, on his part, should act as promptly and boldly in this crisis as
it appears to be the intention of his enemies to act.

(We shall soon come upon proof that the town authorities, instigated
undoubtedly by the same leader and his friends, have been, for some
time past, attacking—“oppressing”—not only the Rogerenes, but the
regular Seventh Day Baptists, despite the quiet, compromising
attitude of the latter sect; a fact so uncommon heretofore as to
amount, in connection with the other appearances, to proof positive
that an unusual emergency is confronting all these nonconformists at
this time, and that John Rogers not only steps forward to check the
advances upon his own Society, but as the champion of the Seventh
Day cause at large. See “Remonstrance,” Chapter V.)

Not having paid his fine, there is now nearly a week in which John
Rogers may meditate in prison before the next Sunday (March 4)
arrives, which he appears to do to good purpose. In some way he
manages to communicate with his ever devoted and ready sister
Bathsheba, and also with his faithful Indian servant, William
Wright. Evidently the 20_s._ fine is sufficient to keep him in
prison over this Sunday, and the wait of a week longer would detract
from the full force of the countermove. This difficulty must be
overcome.

The next Sunday and meeting time arrives. Mr. Saltonstall’s service
proceeds, to which of its many heads is uncertain. Despite the fact
that his opponent is in prison, does every blast of the March wind
seem to rattle the meeting-house door ominously?

Some one ought surely, and at the earliest possible moment, to make
the olden move. The lot has fallen upon Bathsheba. She enters the
church with (apparently) womanly modesty, simply to announce that
she has been doing servile work upon this day and has come purposely
to declare it. (County Court Record.) She is placed in the stocks.
But the end is not yet.

John Rogers himself enters the meeting-house upon this veritable
Sunday, March 4. It is in the “afternoon” (County Court Record),
and, as shown by his copy of “Mittemus” (Part I, Chapter II), he has
by some means escaped from prison for this purpose.

When he appears, it is in a manner calculated to excite in the
preacher whose discourse is interrupted, something besides delight
at the success of the latter’s masterly scheme to entrap him. He
enters with a wheelbarrow load of merchandise,[74] which he wheels
directly to the front of the pulpit, before any in the assembly can
sufficiently recover from their astonishment to lay hands upon him.
From this commanding position he turns and offers his goods for
sale.[75] The scene that ensues before he is returned to prison must
be imagined.

-----

Footnote 74:

Probably shoes of his own manufacture.

-----

Footnote 75:

It is from the account of Mr. Bownas (conversation with John
Rogers) we gain knowledge that there were “goods” in the
wheelbarrow, which were offered for sale before the pulpit. The
court record mentions only the wheelbarrow. Mr. Bownas had
evidently a mixed recollection of this portion of John Roger’s
conversation (relating to work, etc., upon the first day Sabbath),
since he appears to suppose this was a thing that might have
happened more than once, whereas it was an extraordinary measure
suited to an extraordinary occasion, and one which would surely
receive court notice and record.

In his conversation with Mr. Bownas, John Rogers also said, in
this connection, “that the provocations he met with from the
priests, who stirred up the people and the mob against him, might
sometimes urge him further than he was afterwards easy with in
opposing them, but that when he kept his place he had
inexpressible comfort and peace in what he did;” adding, “the
wrath of man works not the righteousness of God.”

Upon this same Sunday, William Wright, “an Indian servant of John
Rogers,” makes a “disturbance,” “outside of the meeting house,” “in
time of worship.” Refusing to pay a fine for his misdemeanor, he is
whipped ten stripes on the naked body. (County Court Record.)

Mr. Saltonstall has one consolation for this certainly unexpected
style of entrance. He can hardly, have reckoned upon such a
stupendous move to aid in securing the long incarceration of his
opponent. The “Proclamation”[76] which John Rogers soon hangs out at
his prison window, to keep before the public his steadfast
determination to oppose the doctrines and measures of the ruling
church, is still further ground for the intended removal to Hartford
and trial before that court, which is soon effected through the
“Mittemus.” (Part I, Chapter II.)

Footnote 76:

“I John Rogers, a servant of Jesus Christ, here make an open
declaration of war against the great red dragon and against the
beast to which he gives power; and against the false church that
rides upon the beast; and against the false prophets who are
established by the dragon and the beast; and also a proclamation
of derision against the sword of the devil’s spirit, which is
prisons, stocks, whips, fines and revilings, all of which is to
defend the religion of devils.”

On the part of John Rogers, his procedure, from beginning to end,
indicates his knowledge of an important crisis, as regards the
Seventh Day cause, and his judgment that the boldest move possible
on his part is the wisest at this time.

[For many a year to come, there will be found no presentment at
court of any of the Rogerenes for servile work upon the first day of
the week. Nevertheless they do not escape. When it becomes doubtful
if juries will punish them; the town authorities may be instigated
to the task.

The wheelbarrow episode was an extreme measure adopted at a critical
time, when, after so long a cessation of violent measures, the
battle was begun anew under the leadership of Mr. Saltonstall.]

CHAPTER V.

1695.

In May, at a special session of the Superior Court, at Hartford,
John Rogers is tried upon the following charges:—

1. For that in New London, in Feb. last, thou didst lay thy hand
upon thy breast and say: This is the humane body of Christ, which
words are presumptuous, absurd and of a blasphemous nature.

2. For saying, concerning a wheelbarrow thou broughtest into the
meeting house about a week or fortnight before, that Christ drove
the wheelbarrow—an impious belying of Christ, accusing him to be
the author of sin and was on the Sabbath day.

3. Thou art presented for disturbing the congregation of N. London
on the Lord’s day, when they were in the public worship of God.

4. Also for saying in court that thou did’st nothing and had said
nothing but what thy Lord and Master sent thee to doe etc.[77]
which expressions were spoken in answer to the governor, who
reproved thee for disturbing God’s people in his day and worship.

Footnote 77:

The “&c.” is of the record.

The evidence against the prisoner in regard to these matters is
given by Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, Daniel Wetherell and John
Christophers, and by “an old man in New London prison,” who
testifies that he heard John Rogers say “that he was in Christ and
just and holy, and ministers would carry people to the devil.”
Stated in record that John Rogers owned to saying he was in Christ,
but denied the rest of the statement by the old man. He also denied
that he said Christ drove the wheelbarrow into the church.

Messrs. Saltonstall, Christophers and Wetherell testify that (“at
Mr. Thomas Young’s”) they saw John Rogers lay his hand on his
breast, and heard him say: “This is the humane body of Christ;” they
also heard him say in a “laughing,” or “as they thought in a
flouting way,” “brother Jesus and brother Paul.” Owned in court by
John Rogers “that he said his body was Christ’s” (note this exact
agreement with his son’s statement, Part I, Chapter II), also that
he used the term brother in regard to Christ and Paul.

The opinions of four ministers are taken as to the blasphemous
nature of said expressions. The names of these ministers are “Samuel
Stow, Moses Noyes, Timothy Woodbridge and Caleb Watson.” They judge
that the expression, “This is the humane body of Christ,” has a high
blasphemous reflection. The saying “brother Jesus is also a
presumptuous expression, in the manner of his saying it” (viz., as
rendered by Gurdon Saltonstall). “The saying that Christ drove the
wheelbarrow is an impious belying of Christ” (regardless of the
prisoner’s denial of having made any such statement). “The
reflections on our worship are a slanderous charge against the
generation of the righteous, and heretical and impious.”[78] They
also “apprehend that in every one of the expressions evidenced
against him there is a high and abominable profanation of the name
of Christ.”

Footnote 78:

Although the “Proclamation” put out at the prison window appears
(by absence on the court records) not to have figured in open
court, it was evidently in the minds of these priestly judges.

Verdict, guilty. Sentence:—

To be led forth to the place of execution with a rope about his
neck, and there to stand upon a ladder leaning against the
gallows, with the rope about his neck, for a quarter of an hour.
And for his evil speaking against the ordinances of God to pay a
fine of £5; for disturbing the congregation to be kept in prison
until he gives security to the value of £50 for his peaceable
behavior and non-disturbance of the people of God for the future
and until he pay to the keeper of the prison his just fees and
dues.

Here is set forth a term of imprisonment which can be ended only by
some change of policy on the part of the authorities; since it is
well known by those who have this matter in charge that John Rogers
never gives such security or bonds.

By this time, excitement and sympathy on the part of friends,
followers and relatives of the prisoner are undoubtedly at their
height, and it is probable that these people give somewhat free
expression to their indignation, especially regarding the charge of
blasphemy and the consequent ignominious punishment. Neither they
nor the prisoner expected other than severe measures regarding the
wheelbarrow affair, which was a very bold stroke of countermove in
an extraordinary emergency.

In June, close following the trial and punishment inflicted upon
John Rogers at Hartford, the New London meeting-house burns to the
ground.

But for the excitement among the dissenters, this disaster might be
attributed to some other cause; but under the circumstances it is a
convenient and plausible charge to lay at their door. About the same
time, also, Stonington meeting-house is desecrated by “daubing it
with filth.”

Bathsheba Fox, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright (the Indian
servant before referred to) are arraigned before the Superior Court
at Hartford, on suspicion of being “concerned in” both of the above
occurrences. The only evidence against John, Jr., and his aunt
Bathsheba is of a circumstantial character, to the effect that some
conversation transpired previous to these occurrences which it is
considered may have instigated the burning and desecration on the
part of others, notably of William Wright. The latter is convicted
of defiling the Stonington meeting-house.[79]

Footnote 79:

After diligent search, no evidence has been found of enmity on the
part of the Rogerenes towards the Stonington church.

It is probable that, in the height of their excitement over the
treatment John Rogers received at Hartford, Bathsheba, John, Jr.,
and others expressed great indignation against Mr. Saltonstall and
the New London church generally. Yet the burning of the
meeting-house was probably as much a surprise to them as to anyone,
and certainly as great a financial disaster; since upon them more
than upon others, by exorbitant seizure of property, must fall the
expense of a new edifice. This latter fact, as well as certainty
that suspicion and apprehension must surely fall in their quarter,
would naturally deter them from any such undertaking. Also,
retaliatory measures of this description are contrary to the
principles of this sect.[80]

Footnote 80:

Miss Caulkins says regarding this burning of the meeting-house:
“It was supposed to be an act of incendiarism, and public fame
attributed it to the followers of John Rogers. Several of these
people were arrested and tried for the crime, but it could not be
proved against them, and they may now without hesitation be
pronounced innocent. Public sympathy was enlisted on the other
side, and had they committed a deed which was then esteemed a high
degree of sacrilege, it is difficult to believe they could have
escaped exposure and penalty.”

At this same Superior Court session, John Rogers, Jr., and William
Wright are charged with having recently assisted in the escape from
the Hartford prison of a man, “Matthews,” who was condemned to
death.[81] William Wright is charged with assisting Matthews to
escape from prison, and John Rogers, Jr., is accused of conveying
him out of the colony. He appears to have been soon recaptured, and
is again in prison at the time these charges are preferred. This is
not the only instance in which John Rogers, Jr., is found running
great risk and displaying great courage in a cause which he deems
right before God, however criminal in the judgment of men.

Footnote 81:

The capital crime with which he was charged appears not to have
been well-proven, for which reason the condemned prisoner
petitioned that there might be a fuller investigation. (See _Book
of Crimes and Misdemeanors_, State Library.) The fact that,
although meriting severe punishment, this youth was not guilty to
the extent presumed by the penalty, is indicated by his after
reprieve.

For assisting in this escape, William Wright is to pay half the
charges incurred in recapturing Matthews. For “abusing” Stonington
meeting-house, for not acknowledging to have heard alleged
conversations among the Rogerses and their confederates in regard to
the burning of New London meeting-house, and for having made his
escape from justice (by which he appears to have recently escaped
from jail[82]), he is to be “sorely whipped” and returned to
Hartford prison.

Footnote 82:

Where he was doubtless confined for his “disturbance outside the
meeting house” in the recent countermove, the “ten stripes” being
too mild a punishment.

John Rogers, Jr., for being “conspicuously guilty of consuming New
London meeting house” (although no slightest evidence of such guilt
is recorded), “for having been in company with some who held a
discourse of burning said meeting house” (although no such discourse
has been proven), and “that he did encourage the Indian to fly far
enough” (this appears to refer to William Wright’s “escape from
justice”), and “for being active in conveying Matthews out of the
colony,” is placed under bond for trial. It is shown that his uncle,
Samuel Rogers, has appeared and given bail for him. (There is no
after record to show that such trial ever took place, and no
slightest mention of any further proceeding in the matter.) This act
of Samuel Rogers is one of the frequent evidences of cordial
friendship between John, Jr., and his uncle.

Bathsheba, for “devising and promoting” the firing of the
meeting-house, and the “defiling” of that at Stonington, is to pay a
fine of £10 or be severely whipped. This fine is probably paid by
Samuel Rogers. It certainly would not be paid by her. The sole
evidence against John, Jr., and Bathsheba is in the character of
vague rumors of indignant discourse relating to the recent moves
against John Rogers, Sr. No proof of any complicity is recorded.

John, Jr., and Bathsheba are freed, but William Wright remains in
Hartford jail with his master (and will continue there for three
years to come), not for burning the meeting-house, which is not
proven against him, nor for defiling that at Stonington (on
suspicion of which he has already been punished with the stripes);
not (save in part) for the charges incurred by the rescue of
Matthews, but (as will be evident three years later) for his averred
determination not to submit to the law regarding servile labor on
the first day of the week.

In the meantime, Mr. Saltonstall and his friends, who have recently
been congratulating themselves on the success of their scheme for
keeping John Rogers in Hartford jail, are gravely contemplating the
ashes of their meeting-house and the remnants of its new bell, with
still further uneasiness in regard to results like enough to ensue
from added distrainments of the nonconformists towards the building
of another edifice.

Nor is this all. There are prominent members of this very church who
have so long been witnesses of wrongs and provocations on the part
of the authorities towards the conscientious non-conformists, and
have seen these wrongs and provocations so increased of late, that
they are willing to join with representatives of those people in an
open remonstrance.

In October of this year, occurs the terrible and mysterious public
scourging of John Rogers at Hartford, which is best given in his own
words and those of his son (see Part I, Chapters II and III), of
which act, or cause for it, no slightest mention is to be found on
court records. All this is but the beginning of vengeance for his
continued refusal to bind himself to what the court terms “good
behavior.” Close following any such bonds, would be the institution
of such procedures against the Rogerenes as would tend to annihilate
their denomination. But so long as the dreaded countermove is to be
looked for, in times of extremity, some degree of caution must be
exercised, even by the rulers of Connecticut.

The “Remonstrance,” to which reference has been made, appears in
January of this year, and is issued by Capt. James Rogers, Richard
Steer, Samuel Beebe and Jonathan Rogers. Appended to it are many
names. Briefly stated, it is charged that the Congregational church
have been so accustomed to persecute those that dissent from them
“that they cannot forbear their old trade;” that the design of the
Act of Parliament for liberty to Presbyterians, Independents,
Quakers and Baptists, to worship according to the dictates of
conscience

“is violently opposed by some whose narrow principles, fierce
inclinations and self interest have wedded to a spirit of
persecution and an itch for domineering over their neighbors. That
the present actions of the authority show that the king has
nothing to do with this colony. That the compelling them to pay
towards the maintainance of a Congregational Minister is contrary
to law and therefore rapine and robbery. That the rights of
peaceable dissenters have been of late, by permission of the
authorities, violated, and that the authority has illegally
oppressed them.”

(Here is proof of recent unusual procedures by the town magistrates,
not only against the Rogerenes, but in regard to the quiet
dissenters on the Great Neck and elsewhere. This persecution has
been going on out of sight of the general public, by action of the
town authorities, since no County Court record appears. Undoubtedly
it was this revival of indignities that stirred John Rogers to his
bold move.)

The “emitters” of this paper are placed under bonds for appearance
at the County Court, where they are fined £5 each “for defamation of
their Majesties,” viz.: “the Gov. of Conn. and others in authority,”
as well as “breach of His Majesty’s peace and disquietude of his
liege people.”

The “emitters” appeal to the Superior Court, not because they expect
any favor from that quarter, but it keeps the cause before that
public in whose sense of justice is all their hope.

1697.

Before May of this year, and while another trial of the case
regarding the claim of Joseph to land awarded Jonathan is still in
progress, occurs the death of Joseph Rogers. It is not unlikely that
had both brothers lived they would have come to an amicable
adjustment of the difficulty; since the evident perplexity of those
charged with examination into the case, indicates reasonable
arguments upon either side, and thus a matter well fitted for
compromise.

Our glimpses of Joseph Rogers are meagre. He and his wife appear not
to have joined the Newport church, but were evidently members of the
church of which John Rogers was pastor. (We have seen the wife’s
baptism, Chapter II.) Yet, of late years, Joseph has been scarcely
more noticeable than Jonathan, as regards arraignment for labor on
the first day of the week, which, as in case of the latter, appears
to prove that his labor was not of an ostentatious character. That
he was steady, thrifty, industrious and enterprising is very
evident. He added largely, by purchase, to the lands given him by
his father, and had become proprietor of a saw-mill and corn-mill at
Lyme. He died intestate, and his widow, Sarah, administered on his
estate. Sarah Rogers now carries forward the suit in which her
husband was engaged. The court appears not unfavorable to her
presentation of the case; but, on account of a neglect on her part
in regard to certain technicalities, the trial comes to a pause,
and, through lack of further action on her part, the case is again
decided in favor of Jonathan.

In March, 1697, complaint is made to the Governor and Council
that John Rogers and William Wright, who were “to be kept
close prisoners,” are frequently permitted to walk at liberty,
and the complainants (names not stated) declare their extreme
dissatisfaction with the jailer and any that connive with him
in this matter. It is ordered that said persons be hereafter
kept close prisoners, and that the jailer or others who
disobey this order be dealt with according to law. Has John
Rogers made such friends with the prejudiced and cruel jailer
of 1694? Even so (see Part I., Chapter IV., for testimony of
Thomas Hancox, and Part I, Chapter II., for scourging of John
Rogers at Hartford and part of same jailer in this abuse).

In 1697, the General Court appoint a committee to revise the laws of
the colony and certain “reverent elders” to advise the persons
chosen in this affair,[83] and also “to advise this court in what
manner they ought to bear testimony against the irregular actions of
John Rogers in printing and publishing a book reputed scandalous and
heretical.”

Footnote 83:

A very distinct glimpse of the power given to ministers of the
standing order in state legislation.

John Rogers, Jr., is now twenty-three years of age, a young man of
brilliant parts and daring courage. Since he is the printer and
circulator of this book, he is probably also its author. In this
same month of May, “John Rogers, Jr.,” is “bound in a bond of £40”
“to appear at court” (Superior) “to answer what may be objected
against him for bringing a printed book or pamphlet into this colony
which was not licensed by authority, and for selling the same up and
down the colony, as also for other misdemeanors”—the nature of the
latter not indicated. No complaint being presented against him, he
is dismissed.

[Could a copy of this pamphlet be found, great light might be thrown
upon this stormy period, by revelation of the full circumstances
leading up to the desperate entry of John Rogers into the
meeting-house in 1694, the plot of Mr. Saltonstall and the
“Remonstrance in Behalf of Peaceable Dissenters.”

That this book, sold “up and down the colony” by John Rogers, Jr.,
was for the enlightenment of the people at large regarding the
cause, and lack of cause, for the long imprisonment and cruel
treatment of his father, with representation of the case for the
nonconformists, can scarcely be doubted. We can picture this
talented and manly youth going from place to place, eagerly seeking
and finding those who will listen to his eloquent appeal to buy and
read this tale of wrong and woe, in the almost single-handed
struggle for religious liberty in Connecticut.]

Does the little book create so much sympathy “up and down the
colony,” that it is no longer wise to keep John Rogers incarcerated,
or are his ecclesiastical enemies at last sated by his nearly four
years of close imprisonment in Hartford jail? However this may be,
at the October session of the Superior Court, 1697, John Rogers is
brought from prison and “set at liberty in open court,” “in
expectation that he will behave himself civilly and peaceably in the
future.” The promise of good behavior is not required of him, as
formerly, but in its place the “in expectation,” etc., which is not
their expectation at all, unless with the proviso that they
themselves observe due caution in the handling of him and his
followers. They are apparently mindful of public opinion and of the
little book.

William Wright is also brought from prison to this court. He stands
here, in the presence of this master, who has just been set at
liberty, awaiting his own turn to be freed. For more than three
years, these men have been comrades in Hartford prison. They dwelt
together at the home of James Rogers, Sr., the Indian a servant of
the latter, and, since his death, servant of the executor, John
Rogers. The master has been kind and trustful, the servant faithful
to a remarkable extent. But for signal proof of heroic allegiance to
this nonconformist, he had not been in prison at all.

The master is waiting that his servant may go with him from the
court-room as a free man. But no! As the ceremony proceeds, the
Indian is offered his freedom only on condition that he will promise
to “behave himself civilly and peaceably in future,” which would
include refraining from servile work upon the first day of the week.
They are demanding promises of the despised red man that they dare
not exact of the white man, who has no lack of money or of friends.

Well may the warm blood of this master spring crimson to cheek and
brow. But not alone the master, the servant himself. They would
compel him to desert his master! The blood of the Indian is a match
for that of the Saxon.

William Wright, standing in swarthy dignity before this worshipful
court, declines his freedom on terms not only unjust to himself, but
demanding infidelity to that master and that cause for which he has
been so ready to venture and to suffer. He declares before this
assembly that he will not submit to the law against servile labor on
the first day of the week, that said law “is a human invention,” and
that he will work upon the first day of the week so long as he
lives.

For this admirable fidelity to his religion and his friends, he is
sentenced to be returned to prison “until there shall be opportunity
to send him out of the colony on some vessel, as a dangerous
disturber of the peace,” and in case of his return he shall be
whipped and again transported.

The wonder is that John Rogers held his peace until the full
completion of this sentence. Had an outburst of indignation and
condemnation of this unjust sentence not been forthcoming, as this
faithful servant was being returned to the close imprisonment of
Hartford jail, then might it be said that John Rogers could, for
fear or favor, stand silent in the presence of injustice. For such
an outburst as this[84] John Rogers is immediately fined £5. This
“contempt of court” is briefly rendered on the records as follows:—

“John Rogers upon the above sentence being passed upon William
Wright behaved himself disorderly, in speaking without leave and
declaring that he did protest against the said sentence.”

Footnote 84:

The words spoken do not appear on record.

Since he never pays such fines (except through execution upon his
property) he is probably returned to prison with his faithful
servant, there to continue until this fine shall be cancelled.

Before the close of this year, Jonathan Rogers is accidentally
drowned in Long Island Sound. Our glimpses of this youngest son of
James Rogers have been slight and infrequent. That he possessed
firmness and independence, is shown by his resolution to continue
fully within the Newport church. The fact that this made no
break—other than upon religious points—with his Rogerene relatives
reveals both tact and an amiable and winning personality. In his
inventory are “cooper’s tools,” “carpenter’s tools” and “smith’s
tools,” indicating an enterprising man concerned in several
occupations, according to the fashion of his time.

1698.

When John Rogers is finally released from prison, the rancor with
which he is still pursued by Mr. Saltonstall, with intent to weaken
his financial power to continue his bold stand, is proven by the
preposterous suit instituted against him almost immediately
(Superior Court) for alleged defamation, in saying that he
(Saltonstall) agreed to hold a public argument with him (Rogers) on
certain points of scripture, which agreement said Saltonstall failed
to fulfil.[85] (This case has been fully presented in Part I.,
Chapter VI.)

Footnote 85:

It would be interesting to know exactly what doctrine or doctrines
were involved. By the occurrence of this suit so soon after John
Roger’s release from an imprisonment on charge of “Blasphemy,” it
would seem not unlikely that the Scripture expounded at the house
of Thomas Young in 1694 (probably Romans viii) might be that in
question. Public “disputes” of this kind were then and for many
years after in vogue in Connecticut.

(Motive for any such alleged statement, unless true, being lacking,
and a pamphlet being published not long after by John Rogers, giving
a detailed account of the whole cause and proceeding, by which the
exorbitant sum of £600 recovery for libel, with costs of court, was
levied upon him, it is presumable that enmity and court influence
were at the bottom of this suit, if not clearly on the surface.
Ecclesiastical power was dominant at this time in all the courts.
Ever back of Mr. Saltonstall stood this power, as intent as himself
upon the overthrow of this daring nonconformist. Could a copy of the
pamphlet by John Rogers,[86] giving details of that remarkable suit,
be found, much light would doubtless be cast upon this period in the
history of the Rogerenes.)

Footnote 86:

For full title, see publications of John Rogers, at end of
_Appendix_.

The death of Elizabeth, widow of James, has recently occurred.[87]

Footnote 87:

This fact is revealed by after procedures regarding settlement of
the residue of the estate, her death not being found on record.

John Rogers has changed his home from the Great Neck to Mamacock
farm, North Parish. His sister Bathsheba has also removed to the
North Parish, to a place called Fox’s Mills, from the mills owned
and carried on by her husband, Samuel Fox.

CHAPTER VI.

1698.

The long and close imprisonment of John Rogers in Hartford, attended
as it was with a bitter sense of wrong, would seem sufficient to
undermine the strongest constitution. To this was added anxiety
regarding home affairs, including charge of his father’s estate and
the care of his mother, which were devolving wholly upon his sister
Bathsheba. His mother’s death close following his release, and
business neglected during the past four years, must have borne hard
on his enfeebled system, to say nothing of annoyance and difficulty
on account of Mr. Saltonstall’s recovery of the £600. Although he
has gathered his family (son and servants) about him, at Mamacock
farm, and resumed the leadership of his Society, he can scarcely as
yet be the man he was four years ago.

It must be sweet to breathe again the open air of freedom, and such
air as blows over Mamacock; purest breezes from river and from sea,
fragrant with the breath of piney woods, of pastures filled with
flowers and herbs, and of fields of new-mown hay, mingled with the
wholesome odor of seaweed cast by the tide upon Mamacock shore.

Not far from the house, towards the river, in a broad hollow in the
greensward, bordered on the north by a wooded cliff and commanding a
view of the river and craggy Mamacock peninsula, is a clear, running
stream and pool of spring water. Here yet (1698) the Indians come as
of old, with free leave of the owner, to eat clams, as also on
Mamacock peninsula, at both of which places the powdered white
shells in the soil will verify the tradition for more than two
hundred years to come. In this river are fish to tempt the palate of
an epicure, and trout abound in the neighboring streams. A
strong-built, white-sailed boat is a part of this lovely scene, and
such a boat will still be found here for many years to come. (See
“Hempstead Diary” for mention of boat.)

1699.

If after the perilous trials, hardships and irritations of the past
four years, this man has a mind to enjoy life, as it comes to him at
Mamacock, it is not strange.

Nor is it strange that, among his house servants, he soon
particularly notices a young woman, lately arrived from the old
country, whose services he has bought for so long as will reimburse
him for payment of her passage. Perhaps the chief cause of his
interest is in the fact that she herself has taken a liking to the
half-saddened man who is her master. Surely he who could so attach
to himself a native Indian like William Wright, has traits to win
even the favor of a young woman. He is evidently genial and
indulgent with his servants, rather than haughty and censorious.

For twenty-five years he has been a widower, except that the grave
has not covered the wife of his youth. Through all these years, the
bitterest of his calumniators have not raised so much as a whisper
questioning his perfect fidelity to Elizabeth, who, since the
divorce, has been the wife of two other men and yet ever by this man
has been considered as rightfully his own. Such being the case, well
may his son wonder that he is becoming interested in this young
housemaid, Mary Ransford, even to showing some marked attentions,
which she receives with favor. She is a comely young woman, no
doubt, as well as lively and spirited. Her master will not object to
her having a mind of her own, especially when she displays due
indignation regarding the wholesale method of gathering the
minister’s and church rates. But when she goes so far as to
“threaten”[88] to pour scalding water on the head of the collector
of rates, as he appears at the front door upon that ever fruitless
errand, this master must give her a little lesson in the doctrine of
non-resistance, although his eyes may twinkle with covert humor at
her zeal. As for the rates, they must be taken out of the pasture.

Footnote 88:

The County Court record says Mary was fined for “threatening” to
pour scalding water on the head of the collector. Miss Caulkins
inadvertently says she was fined for “pouring” the same.

Evidently this attractive girl, Mary, is willing to assent to
anything this indulgent master believes to be right, taking as
kindly to his doctrines as to himself. A man of soundest
constitution, as proven from first to last, and of great
recuperative energy, he is not old at fifty-two, despite
imprisonments, stripes and ceaseless confiscations.

It soon becomes plain to John the younger that this is no ordinary
partiality for an attractive and devoted maid, but that his father
will ask this young woman to become his wife. For the first time,
there is a marked difference of opinion between father and son. Mary
is perfectly willing to pledge herself to this man, even under the
conditions desired. As for him, why should he longer remain single,
seeing there is no possible hope of reclaiming the wife whom he
still tenderly loves. There are arguments enough upon the other
side. John, Jr., presents them very forcibly, and especially in
regard to the inconsistency of putting any woman in his mother’s
place, so long as his father continues to declare that Elizabeth is
still, in reality, his wife.

To this latter and chief argument, the father replies that he shall
not put Mary in his first wife’s place, since that marriage has
never been annulled, by any law of God or of man. Did not God, in
the olden times, allow two kinds of wives, both truly wives, yet one
higher than the other? Under the singular circumstances of this
case, being still bound to Elizabeth by the law of God, yet
separated from her by the will of men, he will marry Mary, yet not
as he married Elizabeth Griswold. He will openly and honorably marry
her, yet put no woman in the place of his first wife. To this Mary
agrees.

It is but another outcome of this man’s character. He fears God and
God alone. He takes very little thought as to what man may think or
do concerning him. Yet not by a hair’s breadth will he, if he knows
it, transgress any scriptural law. (In his after treatise “On
Divorce,” how well can be read between the lines the meditations and
conclusions of this period, and chiefly the fact that, in deciding
upon a second marriage, he in no wise admitted that Elizabeth
Griswold was not still his wife, although so held from him that he
might lawfully take another, although under the circumstances a
lesser, wife.[89])

Footnote 89:

In this treatise “On Divorce,” he shows that the New Testament
admits but one cause for divorce, and does not admit adultery as a
cause. Therefore (by inference), although, by her after marriages,
his first wife leads an adulterous life (see statement of his son,
Part I., Chapter IV.), he does not consider that this fact
releases him from his marriage bond. But since, by the law of God
(“Mosaic” and still prevailing in the time of Christ), a man was
allowed another than his first and chiefest wife, in taking Mary
Ransford for his wife under the forced separation from his first
wife, he breaks no law of God. Not that he so much as mentions
himself, Elizabeth or Mary in this treatise; but the above is
plainly inferable to those acquainted with his history at this
period. Since, in granting the divorce to Elizabeth, the court
left him free to marry again, he broke no civil law in taking
another wife.

Oppose this unpropitious plan as he may, the son, whose influence
has hitherto been paramount, cannot prevail to weaken his father’s
resolution. It is the old and frequent glamour that has bound men
and women in a spell from the beginning, making them blind to what
others see, and causing them to see that to which others are blind,
in the object of their choice. The fact that Mary returns John,
Jr.’s, pronounced opposition to the marriage with consequent
aversion to the spirited youth, does not necessarily injure her
standing with the father. There is but one person for whom
favoritism on her part is absolutely necessary. As is usual in such
cases, the matter goes on, despite all opposition. He who has so
often borne to his mother the tale of his father’s unfaltering
fidelity, must now acquaint her with this sudden engagement. To the
young, the new loves of older people are foolishness. But, in this
case, there is still another reason for John, Jr.’s, opposition to
this mid-life romance; it is sadly interfering with a very natural
intention of his own.

With his usual habit of unhesitatingly executing a plan as soon as
it is fully determined upon, John Rogers improves the opportunity
offered by the session of the County Court in New London, to present
himself with Mary before that assembly (June 6), where they take
each other, in the sight and hearing of all, as husband and wife;
he, furthermore, stating his reason for marrying her outside the
form prescribed by the colony, to which form he declares he attaches
no value, since it was not sufficient to secure his first wife to
him, although no valid cause was presented for the annulment of that
approved ceremony. To fully make this a well-authenticated marriage,
he gallantly escorts Mary to the house of the Governor (Mr.
Winthrop) and informs him that he has taken this young woman for his
wife. The governor politely wishes him much joy.[90]

Much as this second marriage might be lamented, from several points
of view, and much trouble as it brought upon both Mary and John,
Jr., by their irreconcilable disagreement, to say nothing of the
perplexities and sorrows which it inflicted upon John Rogers
himself, it is scarcely to be regretted by his biographer; since it
brings into bold prominence a striking, and wonderfully rare,
characteristic of this remarkable man, viz.: the most reverent and
careful deference to every known law of God, combined with total
indifference to any law of man not perfectly agreeing with the laws
of God.[91] Evidently, what the most august assembly of men that
could be gathered, or the most lofty earthly potentate, might think,
say or do, would to him be lighter than a feather, if such thought,
speech or act did not accord with the divine laws.

Footnote 90:

It may be left to legal judgment to decide whether this marriage
was not more in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law
than was the divorce granted by the General Court of Connecticut,
through no testimony save that of a wife, bent on divorce, against
her husband, regarding a matter which he had confided to her in
marital confidence; said divorce being granted in the very face of
the “we find not the bill” rendered by the grand jury in regard to
the charge made by the wife.

Footnote 91:

Everything involved in the command to “render to Cæsar,” etc.,
being a law of Christ, he held binding, as regarded ordinary civil
legislation.

1700.

By some agreement the house at Mamacock, cattle on the place, and
other farm property, are under the joint ownership of John, Sr., and
John, Jr.; the one has as much right to the house and the farm stock
as the other. It now appears that the junior partner has himself
been intending to furnish a mistress for the house at Mamacock. In
January, 1700, seven months after the marriage of his father, he
brings home his bride and is forced to place her in the awkward
position of one of two mistresses. The young woman who now enters
upon this highly romantic and gravely dramatic scene is one with
whom John Rogers, Sr., can find no fault, being none other than his
niece, Bathsheba, daughter of his faithful and beloved sister of the
same name.

In spite of the difficulties sure to ensue, John, Sr., cannot but
welcome this favorite niece to Mamacock. Not so with Mary. Whatever
estimable and attractive qualities the latter may possess, here is a
situation calculated to prove whether or not she is capable of the
amount of passion and jealousy that has so often transformed a
usually sensible and agreeable woman into the semblance of a
Jezebel. The birth of a son to Mary, at this trying period, does not
better the situation. Even so courageous a man as John Rogers might
well stand appalled at the probable consequences of this venturesome
marriage. When he brought Mary home and directed his servants to
obey her as their mistress,[92] he in no wise calculated upon her
being thus, even partially, set aside. He stands manfully by her, as
best he may, though with the evident intention that she shall
refrain from any abuse of his son’s rights in the case.

Footnote 92:

Mary’s account in her petition to the General Court, 1703. See
“Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Court Files.

Although Mary is fined 40_s_. by the County Court in June, for the
birth of her child, it is not declared illegitimate by the usual
form, the authorities being nonplussed by the fact she and John
Rogers so publicly took each other as husband and wife. She is not
called upon to declare who is the child’s father, nor is the latter
charged with its maintenance, as in cases of illegitimacy.
Evidently, John Rogers did not expect any court action, in the case
of so public a ceremony. He declines to pay a fine so disgraceful to
his wife and child, and appeals to the Superior Court. The court
decides that, since the fine was not accompanied by other due forms
of law, it is invalid, but refers the matter to the future
consideration of the County Court, which results in no further
action in regard to this child.

Mary is also summoned before this same June court and fined 10_s_.,
“for her wicked and notorious language to John Rogers, Jr.,”
evidently on complaint of the latter. In this crisis, her husband
presents himself at the court, partly in her defense and partly in
that of his son. He calls attention to a mark upon her face, which
he says she declares to have been inflicted by the hand of his son
John, during his own absence from home, and that upon this account
“she has become so enraged as to threaten the life of somebody, as
she has done before from time to time,” and he is “fearful that if
God or man do not prevent it,”[93] serious consequences may follow.
John, Jr., is fined 10_s._ on this evidence of his father. Although
the injury to Mary, as indicated by the fine, is nothing serious as
a wound, yet it proves how far the young man lost self-control in
this instance. John Rogers, Sr., objects to the fine imposed upon
Mary under these circumstances, but his statement before the court
is evidently intended not only as a defense of his son, but as a
check upon herself.

Footnote 93:

The statements in this paragraph are from an affidavit still
extant at New London, in the handwriting of John Rogers.

[There is the evidence of a no more partial witness than Peter Pratt
that John Rogers never complained, outside his own home, of the
domestic troubles resulting from this marriage.[94] In the above
instance, he was compelled, by the action of his son, to testify,
both in Mary’s defense and in excuse of his son. Upon this court
record and affidavit is founded Miss Caulkin’s statement that appeal
was made to the court to “quell domestic broils” arising from this
marriage. It is to the advantage of this history that the family
affairs of John Rogers were in this instance forced before the
public, since we may observe the manner in which the father and
husband endeavors to secure an impartial administration of justice,
and immunity of any one from harm.]

Footnote 94:

“Prey Taken from the Strong.”

However this marriage and its consequences may figure upon the
printed page of a less primitive period, they appear not to lessen
respect for this remarkable man in the eyes of his followers,
although these followers are persons of the highest moral character.
His blameless life as a single man for the last twenty-five years,
and his avowed reasons for taking another wife in the manner he has,
are known to all. Moreover, they find no word of God in
condemnation.

In this year, John Rogers publishes, in pamphlet form, an account of
the dispute agreed upon between himself and Mr. Saltonstall, telling
the particulars of that great extortion. (Would that a copy of this
might yet come to the light!)

1702.

In September, 1702, the County Court have a good opportunity to
exercise the “after consideration” recommended by the Superior Court
in 1700, which they improve by dealing with Mary, after the birth of
her second child, exactly as they are accustomed to deal with an
unmarried woman. Her presentment is in exactly the same wording, a
part of which calls upon her to declare under oath, before the
court, the name of the father of her child. To prevent their
carrying out this form, John Rogers is there in court, with his
six-months-old girl baby in his arms, to save it from this disgrace.
He has given Mary directions how to proceed, in order to supplement
his plan of breaking up the intended procedure. If she refuse to
take the oath and to declare John Rogers to be the father of her
child, the court will be baffled.[95]

Footnote 95:

See account of this court scene, by John Rogers, 2d. (Part I.,
Chapter V.).

Being ordered to take the oath, she is silent, as her husband has
enjoined, while he declares to the court that this her child in his
arms is his own. The court knows, as well as the man before them,
that his first marriage has not been annulled for any legal cause;
that he had reason to refuse a repetition of the ceremony. But while
those who make and administer laws may be allowed to ignore them
with impunity, lesser people must abide by them; least of all must
this man escape, who has imperilled the ecclesiasticism of the land.
They threaten Mary with stripes, if she continue her refusal to take
the oath. She looks from the judge to the man who stands, so earnest
and anxious, with the babe in his arms, bidding her not to take the
oath, declaring that, if she obey him, he will shield her from harm.
She knows he will do all that he can to protect her; but she has
seen marks of the stripes upon his own back; she knows how he has
sat for hours in the stocks, and been held for weary years in
prison. Can he rescue her from the stripes?

He sees her yielding and pleads with her, pleads that she will save
their child from this dishonor. The court sternly repeats the
threat. Again he promises to defend her, in case she will obey him;
but declares that, if she yield, branding his child as base-born,
herself as common, and himself a villain, he needs must hesitate,
hereafter, to own her as his wife.

She sees the court will not be trifled with. She knows that John
Rogers uses no idle words. Yet will it not be safer to brave his
displeasure than that of the court? She takes the oath, and declares
John Rogers to be the father of her child. The cloud grows dark upon
the father’s face. He folds his branded child against his heart and
goes his way. All this he risked to hold his first love first, in
seeming as in truth; has risked and lost.

The court proceeds as usual in cases of illegitimacy, pronouncing
John Rogers the father of the child, and ordering that he pay 2_s._
6_d._ per week towards its maintenance, until it is four years of
age. Mary is allowed until the end of the following month to pay the
usual fine of 40_s._, in case of non-payment of which she shall
receive ten stripes on the naked body. In the meantime, she is to be
detained in prison. Will John Rogers own his child to be
illegitimate by paying this fine? By no means.

1703.

To now take Mary back (even if so allowed by the authorities)[96]
would be to brand any other children in the same manner. To marry
her by the prescribed form would be to acknowledge these two
children to be illegitimate. Yet there is one thing that can be
done, and must be done speedily. Mary must be rescued from the
prison and thus saved from the lash. There are but two in all this
region who will risk an attempt like that. They are John Rogers and
his son. Mary escapes to Block Island.

Footnote 96:

Miss Caulkins states that Mary was threatened by this court with
heavy penalties if she returned to John Rogers. Although the
evidence of this has escaped our notice, Miss Caulkins doubtless
came across such evidence.

After a safe period has elapsed, Mary is returned from Block Island
to New London. Her children are placed with her, somewhere in the
town, to give the more effect to her Petition to the General Court,
which is presented early in May. It is a long and pathetic document
(still to be seen in “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in the State
Library, at Hartford), narrating the manner of her marriage to John
Rogers; his taking her home and “ordering his servants to be
conformable and obedient” to her; the trouble they had, “especially
myself,” on account of the displeasure of John, Jr., at the
marriage; a description of her presentment at court for her second
child; her compliance with the court’s importunity, although her
husband stood there “with it in his arms,” and how the result had
made their children “base-born,” by which her “husband” says he is
“grossly abused;” since “he took me in his heart and declared me so
to be his wife before the world, and so owned by all the neighbors.”
She beseeches that the sentence of the court be annulled; so that,
“we may live together as husband and wife lawful and orderly,” “that
the blessing of God be upon us, and your Honor, for making peace and
reconciliation between us, may have an everlasting reward.” Dated in
“New London, May 12, 1703.”

The court takes no notice of this appeal. Mary is returned to Block
Island and the children to Mamacock. Proof will appear, however,
that she is not forgotten nor neglected. Even after her marriage to
another man, and years after this hopeless separation, she will say
nothing but good of him who first called her his wife and acted
faithfully towards her a husband’s part.

[Miss Caulkins states that, some months before this period, John
Rogers “made an almost insane attempt” to regain his former wife
Elizabeth, wife of Matthew Beckwith. This statement is founded upon
a writ against John Rogers on complaint of Matthew Beckwith (Jan.
1702-3), accusing John Rogers of laying hands on Elizabeth,
declaring her to be his wife and that he would have her in spite of
Matthew Beckwith. The historian should ever look below the mere face
of things. For more than twenty-five years, John Rogers has known
that Elizabeth, married or unmarried, would not return to him,
pledged as he was to his chosen cause. He is, at this particular
date, not yet fully separated from Mary, but holding himself ready
to take her back, in case a petition to the General Court should by
any possibility result favorably. This and another complaint of
Matthew Beckwith—the latter in June, 1703—to the effect that he was
“afraid of his life of John Rogers”[97] indicate some dramatic
meeting between John Rogers and “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew
Griswold,” in the presence of Matthew Beckwith, the incidents
attendant upon which have displeased the latter and led him to
resolve that John Rogers shall be publicly punished for assuming to
express any ownership in his, Matthew Beckwith’s, wife.

Any meeting between John Rogers and Elizabeth Griswold could not
fail of being dramatic. What exact circumstances were here involved
is unknown; what attitude was taken by the woman, when these two men
were at the same time in her presence, it is impossible to
determine. But it is in no way derogatory to the character of John
Rogers, that in meeting this wife of his youth, he gives striking
proof of his undying affection. Ignoring her marriage to the man
before him, forgetful, for the time being, even of Mary, blind to
all save the woman he loves above all, he lays his hand upon
Elizabeth, and says she is, and shall be, his. Under such
circumstances, Matthew Beckwith takes his revenge in legal
proceedings. When summoned before the court, John Rogers defends his
right to say that Matthew Beckwith’s wife—so-called—is still his
own, knowing full well the court will fine him for contempt, which
process follows (County Court Record).]

Footnote 97:

This “afraid of my life” is a common expression, and was
especially so formerly, by way of emphasis. Matthew Beckwith could
not have been actually afraid of his life in regard to a man whose
principles did not allow of the slightest show of physical force
in dealing with an opponent. Although the court record says that
John Rogers “used threatening words against Matthew Beckwith,” on
presentation by Matthew Beckwith’s complaint, this does not prove
any intention of physical injury.

John Rogers is fifty-five years of age at this date, and Matthew
Beckwith sixty-six. Elizabeth is about fifty.

In this year, a fine of 10_s._ is imposed upon Samuel Beebe (Seventh
Day Baptist) for ploughing on the first day of the week (County
Court Record). Without doubt the Rogerenes (Seventh Day Baptists
also) have done the same thing. At this period John Rogers may do
whatever he pleases of this sort on the first day of the week.[98]
Nearly four years of imprisonment in Hartford jail, the little book
“sold up and down” the colony, and many a tale narrated of his
bravery and sufferings in the cause of religious liberty, have won
for him such popular sympathy that those who aid and abet
ecclesiastical rule in the state councils, are not as yet venturing
to resume stringent proceedings against the Rogerenes. The signal
failure to secure a promise of “good behavior” from the Rogerene
leader is also a prominent factor in the situation.

Footnote 98:

This by his statement to Mr. Bownas at this date.

Although there is no sign that Capt. James Rogers and his wife have
receded from their nonconformity, their son, James, Jr., has married
a member of the Congregational church and taken the half-way
covenant. He is prominent in the community and has political
ambitions, the attainment of which would be impossible for one of a
nonconformist persuasion. To have won this talented young man, must
be counted a signal victory by Mr. Saltonstall. Samuel, son of
Samuel, has also married a member of the Congregational church. He
is continuing the bakery on its old scale, has landed interests in
the neighboring country, and is surveyor for the town of New London.

Samuel, son of Joseph, now of Westerly, has become a member of the
Congregational church, while his older brother James, an
enterprising young man, is of the Baptist persuasion.

James Smith, son of Bathsheba, is a close follower of his uncle
John, although his sister Elizabeth (married to William Camp) is a
member of the Congregational church, in which her children are
baptized.

During the respite from graver cares, John Rogers has enough to busy
him at Mamacock, outside of his duties as preacher and pastor, in
caring for the place (in unison with John, Jr.) and other business
interests, making shoes, writing books, and attending to the welfare
and training of his two little children, to whom he must be both
father and mother. John and Bathsheba have a third child now. So
here are five little ones in the home at Mamacock. And there is Mary
at Block Island. She came from across the sea, and is likely to have
only the one friend in America.

In this eventful year, John Rogers visits Samuel Bownas, a Quaker
who is detained in jail at Hempstead, L. I., on a false accusation.

Through the whole of a long conversation with the Quaker (narrated
by the latter in his Journal), he makes no reference to Mary, the
prominent figure in this period of his history. It is not his
purpose to reveal to outsiders that, although he and Mary are
separated, he has not resigned her to her fate.

Mr. Bownas states that John Rogers is

“chief elder of that Society called by other people Quaker
Baptists, as imagining (though falsely) that both in their
principles and doctrines they are one with us; whereas they
differed from us in these material particulars, viz.: about the
seventh day Sabbath, in use of water in baptism to grown persons,
using the ceremony of bread and wine in communion, and also of
anointing the sick with oil; nor did they admit of the light of
truth or manifestation of the Spirit but only to believers,
alleging Scripture for the whole.”

Upon this latter point, Mr. Bownas and his visitor have a long
discussion. On any subject but the Quaker doctrines, Mr. Bownas
appears not particularly interested, for which reason he does not
furnish much information in regard to the part of the conversation
relating to John Roger’s sufferings for conscience’ sake, which he
avers to have been a portion of the converse, and which would have
been more edifying to many than the doctrinal views of the Quakers
so fully expounded to John Rogers, which are presented to the reader
through this account of their conversation.

John Rogers is quoted as describing the manner in which the young
people in his Society are trained in knowledge and study of the
Scriptures,[99] and stating that women “gifted by the Spirit” are
encouraged to take part in their meetings.

Of the Rogerenes, Mr. Bownas says: “They bore a noble testimony
against fighting, swearing, vain compliments and the superstitious
observation of days.”

Although John Rogers, in this narration, is represented as fluent in
speech, he is also shown capable of preserving complete silence,
allowing a person who is presenting views exactly the opposite of
his own to go on uninterrupted, rather than present counter views to
no purpose. He is also shown ready to concede much to the Quaker,
expresses no annoyance at the other’s very positive stand, and even
admits possible mistakes on his own part.

Footnote 99:

This shows us that at a date long prior to the time when we shall
find a sturdy band of Rogerene youth, of Rogers and of Bolles
blood, on Quaker Hill, there was no lack of young people in
training to carry forward this cause.

In short, the picture given of John Rogers by the Quaker, although
less particular than could be desired, is that of a genial, friendly
man, discussing questions with great fairness, and without
excitement. When he requests Mr. Bownas, if he ever sees Edmund
Edmundson, to convey to him his sincere sorrow for having argued
against his views that night at Hartford (see Chapter I), the
natural gentleman shows plainly in the man. Possibly, his own
opinions on the subject of that discussion may have changed.

1705.

There is still a refreshing respite from persecution, beyond the
minister’s rates and minor prosecutions carried on by the town
magistrates (of which latter there is so seldom any clear view), and
no attempt to disturb any of the meetings of the Congregational
church.

In this year, John Rogers publishes his book entitled “An Epistle to
the Church called Quakers.” This work, while heartily assenting to
many of the Quaker doctrines, is an earnest and logical appeal to
these people against the setting aside of such express commands of
Christ as the ceremony of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In this
same year he issues “The Midnight Cry” from the same press (William
Bradford, New York).

At this time, as for some five years previous, a youth by the name
of Peter Pratt is a frequent inmate of the family at Mamacock. This
is none other than the son of Elizabeth Griswold by her second
husband. Elizabeth could not keep her son John from fellowship with
his father, and it appears that she cannot keep from the same
fellowship her son by Peter Pratt. This is not wholly explainable by
the fact that Peter admires and is fond of his half-brother, John
(see Part I., Chapter IV.). Were not the senior master at Mamacock
genial and hospitable, Peter Pratt’s freedom at this house could not
be of the character described (by himself), neither would he be
likely (as is, by his own account, afterwards the case) to espouse
the cause of John Rogers, Sr., so heartily as to receive baptism at
his hands, and go so far in that following as to be imprisoned with
other Rogerenes.

According to his own statement, this young man was present at the
County Court in 1699, when John Rogers appeared there with Mary
Ransford and took her for his wife. He seems at that time to have
been studying law in New London, and making Mamacock his
headquarters. He had every opportunity to know and judge regarding
John Rogers at that exact period. To this young man must also have
been known the particulars which led to the complaint of Matthew
Beckwith, his step-father, concerning John Rogers.[100] Had Peter
Pratt disapproved of either of these occurrences it would have
prevented his affiliation with this man. Evidently, nothing known or
heard by him concerning John Rogers, Sr., has availed to diminish
his respect for him or prevent a readiness to listen to his
teachings. (He admits that at this period he “knew no reason why
John Rogers was not a good man.”)[101]

Footnote 100:

He makes no mention of this occurrence in his book.

Footnote 101:

“Prey Taken from the Strong.”

We have seen proof, by statement of Mr. Bownas, that in 1703 John
Rogers was still a faithful observer of the Seventh Day Sabbath. But
in the Introduction to his Epistle to the Seventh Day Baptists,
written, according to date of publication, about 1705, he states
that by continual study of the New Testament, he has become
convinced that Christ Himself is the Sabbath of His church, having
nailed to His cross all the former ordinances (Col. xi, 14), that,
therefore, adherence to the Jewish Sabbath, or any so-called sacred
day, is out of keeping with the new dispensation. “Let no man,
therefore, judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of an holy-day,
or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath.”—(Col. xi, 16.) He also
states that as soon as he came to this conclusion he gave up the
Seventh Day Sabbath and wrote this Epistle to his former brethren of
that church.

After the above conclusion on the part of John Rogers and his
Society, the Rogerenes begin to hold their meetings on the first day
of the week, in conformity with the common custom. Yet, much as they
might enjoy making this a day of entire rest, were there not an
“idolatrous” law declaring that sacred which was not so declared in
the Scriptures, they still consider it their duty to bear sufficient
witness against the assumption of its sanctity.

While the Rogerenes were preaching New Testament doctrines
antagonistic to the state church, on Saturday, when the rest of the
world were busy with secular affairs, not many outsiders would be
likely to attend their meetings; but now that these doctrines are
preached and taught on Sunday, in public meetings of the
Rogerenes,[102] many more are likely to attend these services, and
so become interested in this departure, despite the fine that might
be risked by such attendance.

Yet there are no indications that any new measures have been
adopted, on account of this change on the part of the Rogerenes.
They are at least ceasing labor for that portion of the day devoted
to religious services, which may possibly appear a hopeful
indication, to the view of the ecclesiastical party. At all events,
by the silence of the court records and the testimony of John
Bolles, the Rogerenes are not now being persecuted as formerly, and
we shall find these peaceful conditions existing for some years to
come.

Footnote 102:

Their services for preaching and expounding were always public;
their (evening) meetings for prayer and praise were for believers,
after the manner of the early church.

CHAPTER VII.

1707.

June 4, of this year, a complaint is made by Samuel Beebe against
John Rogers, as executor of his father’s estate, for detaining from
Samuel Beebe three cows, which, by the codicil of the will, were to
be given to his wife Elizabeth after the death of her mother. The
cows are evidently given up to him, since nothing further concerning
them appears on the court records.

The peculiarity about this complaint is that, while claiming what is
given to his wife under the codicil, he is still (as will be seen)
firmly adhering to the irregular proceeding of the widow in 1692,
which ignores the codicil to the extent of attempting a distribution
of the movables—and also a portion of the residue of land—in a
manner entirely different from that directed by the testator in this
codicil.

The determination of Samuel Beebe to, if possible, prevent the
executor from carrying out the full intent of the testator is
sufficient to account not only for the detention of the cows, but
for the much longer delay made by the executors, John and Bathsheba,
in attempting to make the final division indicated by the codicil, a
preliminary to which division would be their taking for themselves
all of the household goods.[103]

Footnote 103:

“Things about the house John and Bathsheba must take them first
before the others be divided.”—_Codicil._

No complaint against the Rogerenes has appeared on the court records
during the nine years previous to this date. While this does not
imply entire cessation of hostilities on the part of the town
authorities, it shows that none of these have been of such a
character as to call forth the countermove, which is punishable by
the County Court.

John Rogers has recently attracted to his following one of the
most intelligent and upright men in the community, who has been a
member of the Congregational church. This is John Bolles, a young,
married man, only son of Mr. Thomas Bolles, one of the wealthiest
and most exemplary of the early settlers of this place, himself
oldest son of Joseph Bolles (of an ancient family of the English
gentry—Nottinghamshire), who emigrated to Maine previous to 1640,
and by the death of his two elder brothers became heir to the
family estates in England.[104]

Footnote 104:

The pedigree of John Bolles in the male line is traceable to time
of the Conqueror. The name is on the Roll of Battle Abbey.

Mr. Thomas Bolles settled in New London at the earnest solicitation
of Governor Winthrop.[105]

Footnote 105:

The Thomas Bolles place is now the Lyman Allyn farm on the Norwich
road. Just south of the Allyn house is the site of an old well. By
this well stood the house of Thomas Bolles, where occurred the
murder of his wife and two children, leaving only the babe, John.
(For particulars, see “Bolles Genealogy.”)

The wife of John Bolles is daughter of Mr. John Edgecomb, another
prominent planter of New London, also of gentle blood of Old
England. (Edgecombs of Mount Edgecomb.)

As his father’s sole heir and by right of his wife in her father’s
estate, as well as through his own prudence and enterprise, this
young man is destined to be one of the richest men in New London.

On account of a remarkable escape from death while an infant in
arms, John Bolles was led, while still a youth, to pledge himself to
the service of God. Now, after careful examination into the
doctrines of John Rogers, he devotes himself, in obedience to his
youthful pledge, reverently and enthusiastically to that cause. (See
Part I., Chapter VI.)

The home farm of John Bolles is half a mile south of that of John
Rogers, on the same (Norwich) road, on a height of land known as
Foxen’s Hill (later Bolles Hill), directly overlooking the town of
New London, with a further view of Long Island Sound.[106] He has
lived for years in the near neighborhood of John Rogers, and has
been one of his personal acquaintances and friends. If this
extremely conscientious young man knew of any cause to distrust the
character of this reformer, even in the days when most maligned on
account of his independent marriage to Mary Ransford, he would not
(in this year) have been baptized by him and entered upon the
unpopular and perilous career of one of his followers.

Footnote 106:

His house stood just south of present house of Mr. Calvert. His
father’s home farm was about one-fourth of a mile south of this
point.

John Bolles states in his “True Liberty of Conscience” that although
the Rogerenes had not been molested of late, yet directly after his
leaving the Congregational church for that of the Rogerenes (1707)
serious persecutions were reinstituted, directed against the
performance of labor upon the first day of the week.[107] Evidently
something must be done, to prevent an influence that can still reach
within the precincts of the Congregational church, to draw forth to
this heretical following some of its brightest and its best.

Footnote 107:

John Bolles further says in regard to the persecution he suffered
upon joining the Rogerenes: “God gave me such a cheerful spirit in
this warfare, that when I had not the knowledge that the
grand-jury man saw me at work on said day, I would inform against
myself before witness, till they gave out and let me plow and cart
and do whatsoever I have occasion on that day.”

Here will be recognized an imitation of the early policy of the
Rogerenes in time of persecution, a policy likely to have been
recommended to all their followers; viz.: to give their opponents
so much more trouble when molesting them than when letting them
alone that the institution of a season of severe measures will be
the less liable to occur. This is the policy recognizable in the
countermove, so sure to take place in time of severe persecution.

1708.

In this year Mr. Saltonstall, so popular among the clergy and other
leading men of Connecticut, as a staunch and able advocate of
Congregational church supremacy, is elected governor, and is
succeeded in the ministry at New London by Rev. Eliphalet Adams.

Dissenters of several kinds are now so numerous that it is
impossible to disregard their combined outcry against ecclesiastical
tyranny. Accordingly, in this year we find the General Court
enacting a law allowing those “who soberly dissent” to worship in
their own way, “without any let, hindrance or molestation whatever,”
provided it be well understood that none are excused from paying
their full share towards the maintenance of the Congregational and
Presbyterian ministry, and that those who desire the liberty of
worshipping in other than the Congregational or Presbyterian way,
shall “qualify themselves at the County Court, according to an Act,
made in the first year of the late King William and Mary, granting
liberty of worshipping God in a way separate from that by law
established.”

The Rogerenes do not derive any benefit from this law; John Rogers
and his followers being resolved never to countenance, by their
obedience, any civil law whatever which dictates in regard to the
worship of God.[108] Baptists, Episcopalians and Seventh Day
Baptists build meeting-houses,[109] qualify themselves under this
law and hold their services in peace; but meetings of the Rogerenes
are still held without legal sanction and so without legal
protection.

Footnote 108:

It will be seen that as late as 1716 (see Chapter IX.), so
prominent a Rogerene as John Bolles was even declared to be
“ignorant of this law.” That he ignored it, with all other
ecclesiastical laws, is more likely to have been the case.

Footnote 109:

A Baptist church springs up at Groton and one on the Great Neck.
The Baptist edifice on the Great Neck (“Pepper Box”) is used in an
admirably liberal and pacific manner by both the regular Baptists
and the Seventh Day Baptists. The leading members of these two
friendly societies are largely of Rogers descent;—descendants of
Captain James and of Joseph being of the first-day persuasion, and
those of Jonathan of the seventh day, as a rule. Since the history
of these societies on the Great Neck has been given by Miss
Caulkins more largely than would be possible in this work, the
reader is referred to the “History of New London” for particulars
regarding them.

In this year, the Saybrook Platform, conceived by Mr. Saltonstall
and his ecclesiastic friends, becomes a law. By this device, church
and state are firmly welded together. Although certain dissenters
may secure leave to worship in their own way in their own churches
(provided they will pay for both their own and the Congregational
ministry), the indifferent or irreligious masses are still subject
to the dominant church, as regards compulsory Congregational church
attendance and money tribute. All yield except the Rogerenes, who
heroically go their way, regardless of menace or punishment. They
see their cattle and other property sold at outcrys to satisfy
extortion, yet hold their peace, unless some action threatening the
continuance of their following of New Testament teachings
necessitates an extraordinary show of nonconformity, by way of
unusual Sunday labor, or perhaps even brings out the countermove,
that last but most efficient means of defense.

1709.

In this year, James Rogers, Jr., is admitted to the bar, and soon
becomes a prominent lawyer of this vicinity.

An attempt is made at this time to stop the preaching and
proselyting of John Rogers. Among his followers at this period is
Peter Pratt, son of Elizabeth Griswold (see Chapter VI.). This young
man now experiences the great necessity for courage and endurance on
the part of anyone who would faithfully adhere to Rogerene
principles; since he is imprisoned with other Rogerenes.[110]

Footnote 110:

For what cause or by what pretense this imprisonment occurs does
not appear. It is revealed by a statement made by Peter Pratt
himself. (“Prey Taken from the Strong.”) In referring to his being
imprisoned with other Rogerenes, he speaks of his wife as a bride
at that time. He was married in 1709.

Judging from past indications, the fact of their having gained a new
convert from a prominent family of the Congregational persuasion is
at any time a sufficient cause for the institution of severer
measures against this sect.

But other annoyances are now at hand for John Rogers. There is the
still unsettled residue of the estate, so difficult of adjustment on
account of the claims of Samuel Beebe, (under the widow’s “deed” of
1692. See Chapter III.), which will be put forward as soon as any
move is made by the executor to divide the residue of the estate
according to the codicil. These claims include certain young slaves,
coming under the head of “moveables” belonging to the estate of
James Rogers, of which movables, by the widow’s deed, one-half was
to be given, after her decease, to her daughter Elizabeth Beebe, and
one-half to her son Jonathan.

During his executorship, John Rogers has freed a number of his
father’s slaves. Two of these slaves (called “servants”) are
mentioned in the inventory of the estate, in 1688, where it is
stated that they are to be free in three years. The bond-children
owned by James Rogers, as yet of no value, were not mentioned in the
will or inventory, but they appear to have been classed with that
residue of the estate (“moveables”) which, by the terms of the
codicil, was to be divided between John, Bathsheba and James.

[There are indications that not only had John Rogers come to regard
the keeping of slaves in life bondage as contrary to the teachings
of the New Testament, in the line of the Golden Rule; but that his
father had come to the same conclusion, and had made plans for
freeing all his slaves. His charge to his children—John, Bathsheba
and James—in the codicil to his will, to “remember Adam,” one of his
two able-bodied negro slaves, appears to have been understood by
them as referring equally to the children of this slave; since one
of the young slaves freed by the executor is proven—by “Hempstead
Diary”—to be Adam, son of this Adam (each being called “Adam
Rogers”). It is probable that others of the young slaves were Adam’s
children, while some of them were children of the negro woman,
Hager, who, as stated in inventory, was to be freed in three years.]

By various documents on record, it is evident that the
administration of the estate by John has gone on in a very
methodical manner and strictly according to the tenor of the will.
The order of the committee (1693) was that, after the death of the
widow, the remainder of the estate should be “disposed of according
to the terms of the will,” of which the codicil was the part that
referred to this residue. The codicil, however, does not contain
explicit directions regarding the movable estate, but simply says
that John and Bathsheba are to “take” the things about the house,
“before the others be divided,” and that—after the cows have been
given to Elizabeth—the remainder of the movable estate “whatsoever”
be divided by John, Bathsheba and James among themselves. The
residue of land legacies is clearly defined. The whole estate having
been placed under the executorship of John and Bathsheba, presumes
their continuance in that office until the final settlement. This is
evidently the expectation of the court and of those concerned, as
they continue to be called executors.

No fault has hitherto been found with the executorship, save in the
demand of Samuel Beebe for the cows. Yet the executor is well aware
of the irregular claims pending, and by his father’s request will be
held from making appeal to the court against any unjust action which
Samuel Beebe may take in this matter.

At this crisis, Captain James comes to the rescue, evidently by aid
and advice of his son James, the young lawyer. A method is devised
by which the irregular claims may be thwarted and, at the same time,
the testator’s request in regard to legal proceedings on the part of
any of his children be respected.

The first indication of the above intention is found in June of this
year, when Captain James makes over to his son James all interest
which he himself has in “all the moveable estate” left by his
father.

The next step is for James, Jr., to enter complaint (July 13) at the
Probate Court that the settlement of the residue (“moveables”) of
his grandfather’s estate—after the death of the widow—has not been
attended to by “the formality of the law.” Being himself interested
in the estate, he desires that “such methods may be taken _as the
law directs_.” The court, upon consideration of this enigma, finds
that the estate was to be settled not by legal form, but by
agreement among the children to John’s executorship, as approved by
the General Court. The Probate Court, therefore, declines to meddle
in the matter.

James, Jr., now enters complaint, at the Superior Court, that John
Rogers and Bathsheba Fox, administrators on the estate of James
Rogers,

“have not administered thereon according to the order of the law,
and have not ever yet made and exhibited in the Court of Probates,
and recorded there, any inventory of said estate; but dispose
thereof at their own will and pleasure without giving account.”

The manner of administration of John and Bathsheba regarding the
movables and lack of exhibition of any inventory of same to the
court, have been in entire accordance with the direction of the
testator. Moreover, had James Rogers, Jr., held to the mode of
division directed in the codicil, his share would be much larger
than by the method now being sought. An ulterior motive is evident
from the start. The court undoubtedly understands the full meaning
of this outwardly peculiar procedure on the part of James, Jr.

The Superior Court directs the Probate Court to issue a writ
summoning John and Bathsheba to render an inventory, etc.,
“according to law,” and if they do not appear, then the Court of
Probate shall grant letters of administration to James, Jr., “or
some other person,” “to the end that a just division be made.”

John and Bathsheba not complying with a demand so contrary to the
directions given them by their father, James, Jr., is appointed
executor, to complete the settlement, viz.: the division of the
movable estate. He now presents an inventory, which inventory is
dated as having been taken in 1788; just after the death of James
Rogers. The movables, of which he claims that John Rogers should
render an account, figure at £100 value. Although the original
inventory presented mentions an Indian and his negro wife and a
mulatto man, each having about three years to serve, also a negro
woman “deaf and dumb,” no mention is made of these or of any other
slaves by the new executor, and no complaint is made regarding the
fact that they and their children have been freed by the former
executor.

While this is going on, John and Bathsheba appear in court in regard
to Hager, a former slave of John Rogers (the negro wife mentioned in
the inventory), who has lost the written discharge from bondage that
was given to her years before by the executors. John and Bathsheba
testify that, shortly before his decease, their father agreed with
William Wright to sell him his negro slave, Hager, for a certain
term of service on the part of William Wright, and at the time of
this agreement gave her to him for his wife, providing for the
couple “a wedding dinner.” They also say that long before this
agreement with William Wright, their father and mother had promised
Hager her freedom at the age of thirty-six years.

“William Wright having been banished before his term of service had
expired, we, being intrusted by our deceased father with his whole
estate, seeing the support of the woman and her children was more
than her service, gave her a written discharge, upon condition she
should support her younger children” (her eldest son to be free at
the age of twenty-one), “which said writing she hath lost.” She is
herewith again discharged, with all her children except the above,
“by these presents.”

The next move by James, Jr., is to attach property belonging to the
late executor to the amount of the value of the aforesaid
“moveables.” Thus, with no appeal to court on the part of any of the
children of James Rogers, and with no breach of trust on the part of
John and Bathsheba, the residue of the estate passes fully into the
hands of the new executor, and is clearly minus any of the “negroes”
which the irregular claimants were prepared to demand.

By this time, Samuel Beebe sees that the young lawyer contemplates
nothing short of preventing every irregular claim which he may
venture to make. Samuel Beebe is no more in need of servants, lands
or goods than are the other heirs, having a good estate from his own
father and another by gifts to his wife from her father. He is now
living at Plumb Island, and in so showy a way that he is called
“King Beebe.”—(_Caulkins._) It is apparently, on his part, a game
played mainly for the zest of it; as Samuel Beebe might sail a boat
of his own against one of Captain James or that at Mamacock. But
alas! a young wife and mother is to become a victim of this game.

For about four years now, a young negro woman named Joan, who was
born of a slave of James Rogers, Sr., has been the wife of a free
colored man named John Jackson, a servant of John Rogers, living in
a house on the Mamacock farm. Joan has, by Jackson, one child, a
son, about two years old, and is expecting another. While yet a
child, Joan was given by the widow of James Rogers to Elizabeth
Beebe, in payment of the legacy of £10, which latter was to be paid
to said Elizabeth Beebe (according to the terms of the will), by
said widow, “with consent of my son John.” Said executor not seeing
fit to transfer Joan to a man who kept slaves in life bondage, and
not doubting that the arrangements for settlement of the estate
according to the will and codicil would fully sustain him in not
allowing this claim of Samuel Beebe by the unwarranted and
unsanctioned act of his mother, freed Joan in due course of time, as
he did the rest of the young slaves.

1710.

About October 1, 1710, Samuel Beebe, in some manner not indicated by
the court records, succeeds in securing Joan Jackson and her boy and
detaining them at Plumb Island.

Unfortunately, and apparently very carelessly (as shown in Chapter
IV.), the committee, in their decision of 1693, instead of using the
wording of the will in regard to the payment of the £10 by the
widow, viz.: “with consent of my son John,” rendered it that the £10
be paid to Elizabeth “by John and Bathsheba, when the widow so
order.”

September 19, 1710, James, Jr., enters complaint at the County Court
that Samuel Beebe is illegally detaining from him, present executor
of his grandfather’s estate, a negro woman, named Joan, who was the
property of James Rogers at the time of his death. The defendant
claims that the woman was part of the legacy of £10 given his wife.

The court decides in favor of Samuel Beebe, its decision being
grounded on the blunder of the committee of division, in 1693.
James, Jr., appeals to the Superior Court. The latter court decides
that if the settlement of the committee in 1693, in accordance with
the terms of the will,

“were in point of law a sufficient conveyance of the negro woman
to Eliz. Beebe, without John Roger’s consent to said conveyance by
his mother, then the jury find the case for Samuel Beebe; but if
the consent of John Rogers was, in point of law, under said
settlement by said committee, necessary to such a conveyance, then
they find the woman for John Rogers.”

This calls for the decision of Judge Gurdon Saltonstall, the
archenemy of John Rogers, who, naturally, ignores the blunder of the
committee and adjudges Joan and her child to Samuel Beebe, as slaves
for life.

Two months later, a second child is born to Joan, at Plumb Island, a
babe its father may neither claim nor behold. Nearly six months more
drag slowly by, in great and grave suspense.

1711.

As for Joan herself, she is not likely to settle down at once, if
ever, in meek submission to her fate. Woman-like, her first thought
would be to escape, if possible, to her husband and the kind masters
at Mamacock, being sure that if she is once upon that shore, they
will not willingly return her to Plumb Island. She cannot be
supposed to consider, in so dire a strait, the peril they would
incur by harboring a runaway slave, such as she now is, by the
decision of the Superior Court.

In the latter part of May, 1711, John Rogers, Sr., is in the
vicinity of Long Island, and also on the mainland of New York.
Southold, L.I., is a common stopping-place for boats from New
London. His friend, Mr. Thomas Young, is now of that place.

If John Rogers landed at Southold, Joan might learn of this fact and
act upon it. But by nightfall the man for whose assistance she may
have hoped is at his objective point on the mainland. She finds
conveyance of some kind, however; for, this same night, she escapes
from Plumb Island with her two children. Upon his return to
Mamacock, the next day, John Rogers finds them there and is accused
of so poor a trick as the bringing them to his own home. He may have
had in view some scheme for their escape; but if so, his plans have
been thwarted by Joan’s imprudence, through her eagerness to reach
her friends in New London.

At the New London County Court, June 5, Christopher Christophers,
one of the chief enemies of John Rogers, being one of the judges,
Samuel Beebe enters complaint against John Rogers and John Jackson,
“on suspicion that they stole Joan and her two children out of his
house the night of May 29th last.” The accused men, being now before
the court, plead not guilty to the charge of taking Joan from Plumb
Island; but acknowledge that, after her arrival at Mamacock, they
conveyed her into Rhode Island. Samuel Beebe owns that the woman and
her children have since been returned to him by the governor of
Rhode Island, and that he has them now.

Upon no further evidence of theft than the fact of the presence of
Joan and her children at Mamacock and their conveyance into Rhode
Island by John Rogers and John Jackson, and having given the accused
parties but a few days to secure testimony, also without regard to
the fact that the alleged theft occurred in another colony, or that
it is a capital offense, on the law book, this court, without a
jury, adjudges John Rogers and John Jackson guilty of stealing Joan
and her children, and sentence them to pay twice the amount of the
worth of said slaves (£40) and costs of prosecution. In case John
Jackson be not able to pay his part, he shall serve Samuel Beebe or
his assignee at the rate of £5 per year until the whole amount is
cancelled. So that Samuel Beebe not only has the negroes fast, but
£40 reward for his complaint against John Rogers.

The record further states that

“John Rogers, upon hearing the above sentence, did, in open court,
declare the said sentence to be rebellion against her Majesty, and
that it was injustice, and declared that this court are rebels
against her Majesty,”

for which contempt, said court

“order said Rogers to give bond of £200 for his appearance at the
Superior Court, in Oct. next, to answer for his offense and for
keeping her Majesty’s peace and being in good behavior in the
meantime, and for want of sureties, to be committed to prison
until he shall be released by due form of law.”

Two of the justices on this occasion are bitter enemies of John
Rogers, while the Superior Court that is to try him for contempt has
Governor Saltonstall for its judge.

Thus, of the two men not proven to have committed this offense, one
departs from the court-room to a long imprisonment, to say nothing
of an execution upon his property, and the other to four years of
slavery, under dictation of the man who has stolen his wife and
children, unless he be able to pay the large sum of £20 for his
freedom.

In this dilemma, John Rogers makes an effort for justice. He
presents a Petition to the court, in which he objects to a trial in
the County Court of New London for a crime alleged to have been
committed within the jurisdiction of Long Island. He asks for a
trial in the latter jurisdiction, where he can produce evidence to
clear himself from any such charge. No attention is paid to this
Petition. (See John Roger’s account of this affair, Part I., Chapter
V.)

On no account will John Rogers go back of this charge of
man-stealing, to enter suit regarding Samuel Beebe’s seizure of this
freed woman; that would be bringing before the court something
relating to the estate of his father. Evidently, for the same
reason, he who fears not at his peril to denounce an unjust decision
in any court of the land, has made no complaint in regard to the so
plainly prejudiced award of Joan to Samuel Beebe, by the judge of
the Superior Court. Even thus can this man hold his peace, when he
will.

The next move, as revealed by the records, is the sale (June 13,
1711) of Joan and her children “for their natural life” to John
Livingston (a prominent attorney); one of the children “a boy of
three years named John,” the other “a girl of six months,” to all of
whom Samuel Beebe says he “has full right by judgment of court,
viz., for the woman and one negro she had with her when she came”
(that is, when, in some way, he secured her) “and the youngest born
since.”

Captain James Rogers appears to be as much opposed as his brother
John to keeping persons in lifelong bondage.[111] James, Jr., will
take any legal action yet possible to rescue Joan and her children.

Footnote 111:

In his own large inventory is no mention of any slaves.

Among other things, outspoken dissent to certain state church
doctrines and usages will be far less prominent with John Rogers
behind the bars. Popular opinion appears to have proven unfavorable
to continued persecution on religious grounds, ever since John, Jr.,
went “up and down the colony” selling that little book. The case
regarding Joan has been a fortunate happening for Governor
Saltonstall and his friends.

Although, by the sentence, the trial for contempt was to be before
the Superior Court at New Haven in October, we find it taking place
at a session of this court in New London, September 25, in the
meeting-house.[112]

Footnote 112:

In lieu of other suitable accommodation in New London this edifice
continued to be used, for some time, for sessions of this
court.—(For John Roger’s account of this trial, see Part I.,
Chapter V.)

John Rogers asks to be tried by a jury, choosing the one then
sitting, but Judge Saltonstall denies him trial by jury,—John Rogers
has too many friends in these parts. There must be no means of
escape for the opponent he has so often bled before, and would fain
bleed to the death. He pronounces judgment in a fine of £20 and
costs of prosecution, and a bond of £100 “for good behavior” until
the March session of the same court, with imprisonment at prisoner’s
expense,—unless he give surety for the bond, which Gurdon
Saltonstall well knows he will not do, thereby to acknowledge that
he has been “misbehaving” himself. All this is (by the court record)
because John Rogers “falsely and slanderously declared in court that
the sentence of said court against himself and John Jackson was
‘rebellion against her Majesty.’”

They examine the deeds to find suitable land to take in execution
for this fine of £20, and discovering such land, by Upper Alewife
Cove, that was sold to “John Rogers,” they proceed to claim it for
the Colony of Connecticut. John, Jr., in vain assures them that he
himself bought this land, with his own money, and it is also in vain
that he presents the original deed, in the copying of which, upon
the town records, the clerk omitted the word Jr. Nor will his
father’s after affirmation in court that he himself made out this
deed, and wrote the Jr. therein, secure its release. Moreover, as
John Rogers himself declares (Part I., Chapter VI.), they kept the
original deed presented in proof, and, after John, Jr., had paid
them their price for the redemption of this land, viz., £20—as
proven by court record—they took this very land again for another
fine of £20.[113] Here are indications of the bitterest venom on the
part of those in power, at this period, yet no complaint on the
records regarding “servile labor, etc.,” or baptisms, or
“blasphemy,” or any other nonconformity.

By these signs it may be judged that never was the influence of John
Rogers more feared than at this very period, yet never also were the
authorities more cautious regarding complaints and actions against
him on avowedly ecclesiastical grounds.

Footnote 113:

Why seizures at this time are confined to this piece of land, can
only be conjectured. At this date, the Mamacock land still lay
under the attachment of the new executor, James, Jr., and so was
safe from this sort of seizure. The attachment by James, Jr., was
evidently a mere blind, and it served a double purpose.

CHAPTER VIII.

1711.

We left John Rogers on his way back to prison, there to remain until
the March term of the Superior Court, because he would not promise
“good behavior” (“as if I had misbehaved myself.” Part I., Chapter
V.).

Against tyranny in high places, there is ever at hand the one
highest appeal, that to the public at large, where is always in
reserve a good measure of sympathy and sense of justice. Not only is
our hero stirred through and through by this personal and
ecclesiastical thrust, under guise of righteous administration of
law, on the part of an official who has for so many years occupied
the position of a reverend preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ;
but he knows well of this last appeal, which has heretofore stood
him in good stead against the bitter edicts of these half—if not
wholly—ecclesiastical courts. Though as yet there are no newspapers,
there are eyes to see, ears to hear, and tongues to carry fast and
far.

What recks this Samson of their paltry “goal”? Somehow, without show
of physical force (the least sign of which would surely have been
entered on the court record), he makes the sheriff quail. The
lightning in his eyes, perchance, the deep tones of a voice that
never breathes an oath, even to swear by in a court; uttering
ominous words to some such effect as that he “will seal his quarrel
with his blood.” Should he attempt escape from the sheriff his death
could be accomplished, then and there.

The sheriff returns to the court-room (meeting-house) and reports to
the court that John Rogers is conducting himself in a “furious”
manner, “threatening that the jail shall not hold him and that he
will seal his quarrel with his blood”; the sheriff “fears he will
break out of jail and do mischief to some of her Majesty’s
subjects.” What subject but himself, through punishment which can be
inflicted upon him for breaking away from an officer, which is a
capital crime on the law book.

The quickly forthcoming order of the court (Judge Saltonstall) that
John Rogers shall be placed in irons at need, “for preventing
mischief,” is but the beginning of the plot now in contemplation.

By further order of the judge and governor (one and the same) John
Rogers is to be conducted from the ordinary prison to the “inner”
prison.[114] The latter is not yet finished, and is half a mile from
the house of the jailer. It has as yet no underpinning, but stands
above the ground on blocks. The green planks of which the floor was
made are much shrunken, leaving large cracks for the entrance of the
wind, and there is “an open window towards the northwest.” There is
no fireplace, nor any means for making a fire; moreover, by the
orders, no fire is to be allowed this prisoner.[114] It is October
and unusually cold and stormy for this time of year.

Footnote 114:

For John Roger’s description of this prison and his imprisonment,
see Part I., Chapter V.

How does John Rogers, Jr., manage to communicate with his father in
this place? He must scale the high fence surrounding the prison
yard, to make his way to the “open window” of the prison, whose
grates will not admit the passage of any fuel, even if a place could
be found within in which to make a fire. This son comes, under cover
of the darkness, to give such aid and comfort as he may, and
especially in the cold nights, which indicates that he contrives to
furnish some slight means of warmth.

Until November 16 of this unusually inclement season, John Rogers,
at the age of sixty-three, is a solitary prisoner in this inner
prison, with such apology for a fire as his son can provide, by
coming two miles after dark to the prison window.

Governor Saltonstall, sitting beside his beaming hearth, already
furnished with its huge back-log, gives no pitiful thought to the
man whom he has denied an honest trial, and now forbids so much as a
fire to keep him from death’s door.

On the bitter cold night of November 16, John, Jr., coming the long
two miles over the rough Mohegan road, and making his way, by
scaling the prison fence, to the grated, open window, finds his
father incapable of the usual intelligent response. Over the fence
again he hurries, and out into the streets of the sleeping town,
calling loudly at the sheriff’s house: “You have murdered my father
in prison to-night!!!” “The Authority has murdered my father!!!”
(County Court Record.) Not only are the sheriff, his instigators and
their sympathizers aroused by this loud and ringing cry of alarm in
the dead of night, but also some of the many who are friendly to the
prisoner. These latter spring with alacrity from their beds, at the
news that John Rogers is dead, or dying, on this wild night, in the
distant and fireless inner prison, through which the bitter winds
are whistling.

Mr. Adams, the minister, a man of a kind heart, despite
ecclesiastical fidelity, cannot turn a deaf ear to this report
concerning the imprisoned dissenter. He and his wife show their
humanity by sending a bottle of wine and a bottle of cordial to the
sufferer. At the popular demand, the captive, almost senseless with
cold and the malady resulting therefrom, is conveyed to the warm
house of the sheriff,[115] where he at length revives.

Footnote 115:

This house is a tavern, and has in it the ordinary prison. It is
near the Mill Cove.

John Rogers, Jr., is brought before the County Court in New London a
fortnight later, on charge of making a disturbance in the night, and
fined £3. He is granted a review at the court to be held in June,
and required to give bonds for “good behavior,” until his trial
before the said court shall occur. Refusing to acknowledge, by
giving the required bond, that he has done anything wrong, he is
consigned to jail until session of the June court.

At this same November court, we find several other cases relating to
this history. Samuel Beebe again demands of Capt. James Rogers the
land made over to himself by the irregular “deed” of the widow. He
and John Keeney and wife (formerly wife of Jonathan Rogers) make
claim to all the “moveables” by the same document. These cases go
against the plaintiffs. Samuel Beebe appeals to the Superior Court.

At this court, also, James, Jr., makes another effort for poor Joan.
The case having already been settled on one presentment, he bases
his complaint upon different grounds. He says that, in the preceding
June, Samuel Beebe brought a suit against John and Bathsheba,
previous administrators, for possession of Joan, on plea that she
was given to Elizabeth Beebe by the widow as part payment of the
legacy of £10; but that for Samuel Beebe to make claim of John and
Bathsheba at that date—he himself being at said date executor of the
estate in place of John Rogers—or for John and Bathsheba to appear
on a court summons to answer such complaint of Samuel Beebe was
irregular procedure. He states that, at the time Samuel Beebe
declares this disposal of Joan by the widow to have been made, the
latter was incapable of managing any business, or even of taking
care of herself, and was under the guardianship of John and
Bathsheba, according to the intent of the testator; also, by order
of the court, they were her guardians and the managers of the
estate; so that she had no right to dispose of Joan, neither had any
possession of her at the time. He avers that by John and Bathsheba
illegally joining a false issue with Samuel Beebe, in not reminding
the court that they were no longer executors,[116] Joan had been
adjudged to Samuel Beebe and taken by execution. He demands Joan
with damages. It is a good case, but of course it fails. The court
is not willing to reverse its former decision. James, Jr., appeals
to the Superior Court. But it will be useless to ask the judge of
that court to alter a decision by means of which he has been able to
incarcerate his opponent. (The case is not brought before the
Superior Court, but apparently dropped as a useless endeavor.)

Footnote 116:

They could not so remind the court, it being contrary to the will
for them to give up their executorship, or to have anything to do
with the court.

Late in this month of November, occurs the death of Bathsheba
(Rogers) Fox.[117] She has been heroically faithful to the departure
instituted in 1674, only, at the last, to see this beloved brother
again in the iron clutches of ecclesiastical hatred, he who would
have been among the first to hasten to her bedside. How bitter to
him, in those last days of his devoted sister, must have been the
cruel bonds that held him at a distance, while she went down to
death.

Footnote 117:

The esteem and affection in which Bathsheba was held by her
husband, Samuel Fox, may be estimated by the fact that he not only
gave valuable lands to her sons by Richard Smith in her lifetime,
but, although he had married again, left by will, sixteen years
after her death, to her sons by the name of Smith, yet living
(James and John), £40 each, and to her three daughters by Richard
Smith, £10 each.

1712.

Under date of March 7th of this year, we find a deed of gift[118] of
some land (adjoining Mamacock farm) from John, Sr., to John, Jr.,
with the statement therein that this gift is to make up to his son
for the land that had been taken from the latter for a fine of £20
imposed upon himself (Part I., Chapter V.), also for a choice cow
and a considerable number of sheep that had been taken from his son
to satisfy like claims against himself. He states that this gift is
also to stand as a testimony of his appreciation of the fact that
this son who

“was taken from me in his infancy, upon the account of my
differing in judgment, and ordered by the Authority to be brought
up in their principles, incensing him against me his own father,
and thus kept from me till he came to a young man’s estate; yet,
notwithstanding, last winter now past, hath been an instrument in
the hands of God, to preserve my life in an unfinished prison,
with an open window facing towards the northwest, I being fined
and imprisoned by two several courts without any trial of law by a
jury.”

Footnote 118:

This deed must have been written in prison. It is recorded among
New London land deeds.

It will be remembered that John Rogers is still in prison, awaiting
the sitting of the March session of the Superior Court in New
London. This now opens, March 25, at the meeting-house.

At the opening of the court, the sheriff announces that he has kept
John Rogers safely until now and has him still in custody. The court
orders the sheriff to set said prisoner at large.

Samuel Beebe fails to follow up his claim on land of Capt. James at
this court, but renews the suit regarding alleged gifts of the widow
to his wife, viz., “moveables,” including certain young slaves
belonging to the estate of James Rogers. He enters suit, by his
attorney, Colonel Livingston, against Samuel Fox (husband of
Bathsheba) for two negroes with £5 damages, and against John Rogers,
Jr., for three negroes; all five being free negroes in employ of
said persons. The verdict goes against him. John Keeney and wife
also lose a similar suit for similar alleged gifts on the part of
the widow.

On this same day, James Rogers, Jr., having presented his accounts,
etc., to the Probate Court, as executor, said court orders
distribution to be made of the residue of the estate (movables),
according to regular form of law when a person dies intestate; a
double portion to Samuel, as oldest son, the remainder to be equally
divided between the other children. This gives James Rogers
one-eighth of the movables, instead of the much larger share
accorded by the codicil. Evidently self-interest had no part in the
move made by James, Jr. Now comes the part of Samuel Rogers in this
final issue. He states to the court, “in writing,” that he has
already, and before his mother’s decease, received, by the terms of
agreement among the heirs, according to his father’s will, all that
was due[119] to him from his father’s estate, to his full
satisfaction, and absolutely quits claim to anything further. Joshua
Hempstead is ordered to make distribution.

Footnote 119:

This due to him was £200 secured by note, and paid to him by the
executor.

(N.B. There has now been placed before the reader the sum and
substance of all the litigation in regard to the estate of James
Rogers, upon which Miss Caulkins founded her statement regarding
“contention” among his children.)

The very next day,[120] March 26 (by Superior Court record), while
the court is still in session, John Rogers is taking a convert to
the Mill Cove for baptism. In doing so, he passes near the house of
the sheriff, where he has so recently been a prisoner. Accompanying
him are a number of his Society, among them John Bolles, John
Rogers, Jr., and James Smith, son of Bathsheba. Time and again,
since that notable day in 1677, has John Rogers baptized persons in
this Mill Cove, directly under the windows of Governor Saltonstall,
so to speak, whose house stands near by on a hillside rising from
the cove. Certain lands bordering this cove remain in Rogerene
ownership.

Footnote 120:

What follows (as far as December, 1713), is derived from
statements of John Rogers (see Part I., Chapter V.), from records
of Superior Court in New London March 26, and from record of
County Court of New London, before which court were arraigned
those who prevented the seizure of John Rogers without a warrant.

If the sheriff and his chief have judged that the heroic treatment
of the past eleven months has cooled the ardor of the dissenters,
here is unmistakable proof to the contrary. If the sheriff can nip
this bold little act in the bud, formally or informally, he may be
sure of the governor’s co-operation and hearty commendation. On plea
of wishing to speak with John Rogers, he persuades him to enter his
house (which, as before said, contains the prison). He then
endeavors to force him to enter a door leading into the prison. The
friends of John Rogers, who have followed him into the house, Upon
seeing the latter purpose on the part of the sheriff, surround their
leader, to prevent hands being laid upon him, and others in the
tavern join them in declaring that no arrest can legally be made
without a warrant. The sheriff leaves, with the avowed purpose of
going to the court-room (meeting-house) for a “mittimus.” Here,
within this brief period of time, are two outrages upon the law;
first, an attempt to take a prisoner without a warrant; second, to
seek warrant for an arrest not authorized by law; the only penalty
concerning such baptism being a fine after the occurrence of said
baptism; imprisonment following only in event of non-payment of the
fine. Well may the victim turn and follow the sheriff to the
court-room.

The sheriff, being somewhat ahead, has already made out a case, so
far as the judge is concerned; nothing more having been necessary
than to state the attempted baptism. Taking into account all that he
has suffered of late from unjust and despotic procedures on the part
of the courts, John Rogers enters the court-room (meeting-house)
fully prepared to denounce this latest outrage.[121]

Footnote 121:

This entrance is thus described on the court records:—

“John Rogers coming into her Majesty’s Superior Court and behaving
himself in a furious, raving manner with mighty crying and
tumultuous noise, and it being certified to this court that ye
said Rogers had gotten some and was endeavoring to gather a
greater number of idle, vagrant persons by a like raving
management of himself, and designed and engaged to dip them in ye
water and said that he would baptise one of them.”

When we remember that the “idle, vagrant persons” accompanying him
were no less substantial citizens than John Rogers, Jr., John
Bolles and men of that stamp, this record assumes the character of
a misrepresentation throughout. Also the contradiction in the
record that John Rogers “designed to dip” an indefinite number “in
the water,” with statement that he said he would baptise “one,” is
significant. No court record regarding John Rogers but must have
been penned with careful reference to the appearance of his
offense before the public, by precaution of those in charge, who
were his enemies.

Vain against the power and determination of Governor Saltonstall are
the ringing tones in which this departure from the written law of
the land is condemned. But well has John Rogers calculated that, in
the presence of all these witnesses, the judge will not venture to
issue the illegal warrant for his arrest. The judge goes on,
however, to sign a warrant (“mittimus”). Although he dare not arrest
John Rogers because of the attempted baptism, he has now a better
excuse and more personal determination also; since John Rogers has
dared to enter the court-room to again publicly denounce official
procedures. He signs a warrant for the arrest of John Rogers, on the
charge of MADNESS!

Well might all the proceedings of the past year, capped by this,
make mad the sanest man, in both senses of the word. The sheriff
claims his prisoner and leads him from the court-room.

A crowd follows sheriff and prisoner to the jail. An uproar ensues
when the window of the prison is darkened by a plank, and that same
plank is broken down by the mob. The appeal of John Rogers, in the
court-room, for the rights of the citizen, has not been made in
vain. All praise to that English lieutenant, who goes to the
Superior Court, still in session, to ask for an adequate examination
of this prisoner, that it may be seen he is under no distraction.
The assurance is returned that the prisoner shall be brought before
the governor in the evening (when danger from the mob may be
avoided) _for a private examination regarding his sanity, by the
very man who has invented this charge of lunacy_! Of the absurdity
of the promised examination, the lieutenant probably knows little or
nothing; but others understand. This evening interview will make the
friends of the governor laugh in their sleeves, while friends of
John Rogers discern a new insult and injury, under this so
transparent cloak of fairness.

Even after dark, the prisoner’s convoy to the house of the governor
is beset with indignant sympathizers, who follow into the very yard
of the governor, where, after the prisoner’s entrance to the house,
they have to be dispersed.

These two men, under these circumstances, stand face to face, behind
closed doors, the one knowing as well as the other that the only
fault or distraction of which John Rogers is guilty is the old crime
of nonconformity. (Would that this remarkable scene and conversation
had been revealed for the benefit of future history.)

After this “examination,” the prisoner is returned to the sheriff,
to be taken to his “house.” With such friendly demonstrations among
the people, John Rogers cannot be confined as a common malefactor or
madman, in the prison at said “house”; he is even allowed the
freedom of the yard during the sheriff’s continued attendance upon
the court, which is sufficiently significant of the known falsity of
the charge of insanity.

Two days after, the sheriff is instructed that, after adjournment of
the court, he is to convey John Rogers to the Hartford prison and
see that he is shut up in a dark room, where a certain French doctor
will “shave his head and give him purges,” to cure him of his
madness. Such treatment, added to all the memories of past wrongs,
would seem enough to give the sanest man the temporary appearance of
a maniac. The more he can be made to appear like a maniac, the more
plausible will be the excuse for consigning him to a worse than
prison cell.

Had it remained for Gurdon Saltonstall to carry out this inhuman
purpose, the statement that John Rogers died in Hartford prison, or
in a madhouse, would probably have ended this man’s history.

Some person, to whom the sheriff confided the inhuman plot, being
friendly to the prisoner, John Rogers is informed of the doom
prepared for him. He goes directly to the sheriff, to inquire into
the truth of the statement, and asks to see the warrant for this new
procedure, which the sheriff shows him. He there recognizes the
handwriting of Gurdon Saltonstall.

Few men could be readier in resources than the man in custody. A
person is quickly found to carry word, this very (Saturday) evening,
to John Rogers, Jr., at Mamacock, of the impending peril. The
hurried message quite suffices. With all possible speed, before the
night is far advanced, John, Jr., is at hand, with a staunch boat,
near by, well manned, to convey his father to Long Island. He has
also money for his use, and, finding him in need of a suitable
shirt, takes off his own and gives him. The boat was easily moored
not far from the prison, which is by the Mill Cove, and also not far
from the Thames River, into which the cove leads.

This boat, propelled by hands well skilled, pulls out from shore, in
cover of the night, and goes to brave the winds and waves of March
across Long Island Sound. John, Jr., returns to Mamacock, with
thrilling tale of this, so far, successful rescue. Many a follower
besides John Bolles anxiously awaits the tidings. Eagerly, no doubt,
they gather in the big front room at the Mamacock “mansion house,”
to talk the matter over and speculate regarding the result, noting
the weather betimes and praying for a bon voyage.

Before dawn, John Rogers is landed at Southold, and makes his way
to the tavern. It will be seen how much he conducts himself either
like a malefactor or a madman. While it is still early morning, he
presents himself before a justice, to inform him of his escape
from the New London sheriff, and the circumstances of the case. A
guard is placed over him until the next day (Monday), when he is
taken before the justices and the law is read to him stating it to
be felony to break out of a constable’s hands. In return, he
places before them a copy of the warrant issued by Governor
Saltonstall for his arrest on the ground of insanity. The
intelligent, self-possessed appearance of the man, as opposed to
this singular declaration of lunacy, occasions these officials no
little perplexity. They withdraw for a private conference. All
agreeing that he is a sane man, they discharge him from custody.
He now informs them of his intention of appealing to the Governor
of New York for protection, and asks them to stop, if possible,
the “Hue and Cry” that will be sent after him, which they kindly
promise to do. The remainder of this story is best told in his own
words (Part I., Chapter V.).

In June of this year, while the refugee is still in New York, a
session of the County Court is being held in New London. The case of
John Rogers, Jr., for the disturbance at night (November 16, 1711),
by which he saved the life of his father, now comes up for review.
He desires to be tried by jury; but the present jury is dismissed
and a special jury impaneled for this case. The fine of £3 and costs
of the previous court is made to stand good against him, and three
of the best cows on Mamacock farm are taken for this fine (see
Chapter IV., last part). Although he was sentenced to imprisonment
until this court for not giving the required bonds, we have seen him
free at the time of his father’s escape to Long Island. The bonds
were doubtless given by a friend, as frequently happens with the
Rogerenes.

At this June court, John Rogers, Jr., John Bolles, and James Smith
(son of Bathsheba) are complained of for preventing the sheriff from
arresting and imprisoning John Rogers on March 26. The charge is
that these persons “opposed, resisted and abused” the sheriff “by
threatening words, pushing, hunching, and laying hands on John
Rogers,” as said sheriff and the constable were apprehending him. A
jury having been demanded and by good fortune accorded, a verdict of
“not guilty” is rendered, and they are discharged. This shows the
method of defence used by the Rogerenes on this occasion. They
surrounded their leader, forming a human wall about him, and kept
this position in spite of the efforts of sheriff and constable to
lay hands upon him.

Although no reply is returned to the message which the authorities
of New York have sent to the authorities at New London, in behalf of
John Rogers, this proof of friendliness on the part of New York
dignitaries towards the refugee from Connecticut, and their evident
knowledge that this refugee had been imprisoned on false pretences,
has so salutary an effect, that when, after a stay of three months
in New York, the nonconformist boldly returns to New London, no
attempt is made at reimprisonment.

This indomitable man immediately makes a move to prosecute the judge
and justices of the County Court who, in June of the preceding year,
not only tried in New London a case of “man-stealing,” pretended to
have been committed within the jurisdiction of Long Island, but
tried a case of this serious nature—even capital upon the law
book—without a jury. He must be well aware that such protest on his
part is not only likely to be very expensive but wholly ineffectual.
Back of this judge and these justices, stands Governor Saltonstall;
moreover, any blame attaching to them would attach equally to the
governor from having so signally punished the man who had declared
against the illegal proceedings of the court at the time. Yet he
makes the appeal manfully. Those who have heard the previous
circumstances will hear also of the vain effort for justice,
and this itself may help to weaken the despotic rule of an
ecclesiastical clique.

1713.

In May of this year, at the session of the General Court, the
judge and justices of the County Court appear, to answer to the
above charges; John Rogers having, by repeated efforts, secured
this much of attention. (See his account, Part I., Chapter V.) The
defendants stand mainly upon objections regarding time and form of
the Petition, on the part of the plaintiff. They say there was
nothing in John Roger’s petition that showed any appearance of
maladministration, and that, had there been any ground for his
complaint, it did not come within the time limited by law. This
shifting from the main ground to technical points, with denial of
any importance to be attached to the significant charges (lack of
jury and wrong jurisdiction), call for legal knowledge and adroit
argument regarding minor points of the law, by way of evading the
question of vital importance. In short, the case is, by legal
device, taken away from the plaintiff at the start. As a show of
justice, the court offers the plaintiff legal counsel; not to
decide whether this case should have been tried where, and as, it
was tried, but mainly whether the plaintiff’s petition was within
the time specified by law. Every difficulty possible had been
placed in his way to retard the case, doubtless with this very end
in view. The plaintiff refuses to make any reply, since he can
reply to nothing but legal evasions. It being proven to the
satisfaction of this court that John Rogers has nothing to
complain of, he is ordered to pay the expenses of the judge and
justices for their attendance on the court.

This man has ever in such cases a last resort, to be used at
whatever peril. Then and there, before this assembly, he again
charges the County Court held in New London, with “felony, rapine
and injustice,” and moreover declares the daring truth that the
Governor of this Colony, here present, is an abettor of the same.
The court, having considered his offense and high misdemeanor,
resolve that he shall pay a fine of £20 to the public treasury, and
execution upon his property is to be granted by the Secretary.

In November of this year, Capt. James Rogers passes away. To the
last, he has been a busy man on land and sea. July 1st he returned
from one of his voyages to the Barbadoes (“Hempstead Diary”). He
owned and operated a tannery and cooper’s establishment at Goshen.
He left a large estate, and followed his father’s example in
desiring his children to settle the same out of court. This
settlement proceeded in a perfectly orderly and harmonious manner.
Despite the fact that his sons, James and Richard, had become
connected with the Congregational church, he and his wife evidently
continued in their nonconformist faith, as particularly proven by
the remonstrance of 1695.[122]

Footnote 122:

That Capt. James, like his brother John, gave up the seventh-day
sabbath, adopting the first day for religious services, is
indicated by the fact that those of his children that remained
Baptists were first-day Baptists. The same is true of the family
of Joseph Rogers, many of whose descendants were (and are)
Baptists of the regular persuasion.

Nothing has been found to disprove the supposition that Capt.
James Rogers and his wife and Joseph Rogers and his wife continued
in the Rogerene faith to the end. John Rogers had many followers,
while the names of only a few of those more conspicuous in
leadership are revealed to us by the court records. The fact that
certain sons of Capt. James and of Joseph inclined to, and finally
united with, the Congregational church readily accounts for the
less prominent stand of their parents.

In December of this year, occurs the death of Samuel Rogers in his
73d year. Although this evidently superior man, by his distaste for
controversy and public proceedings, as well as by his busy life in
developing the new lands of Mohegan (whereby his name is written all
over the early books of New London land records), has succeeded in
hiding himself largely from the view of future generations; yet when
compelled to present himself to such view, he has always been found
acting the manly part. Throughout the early period of persecution,
he was plainly in sympathy with his father and brothers, and proofs
of continued sympathy with the Rogerene cause are evident to the
last. He kept quietly but firmly aloof from the church that
persecuted his relatives, despite counter-influences in his own
family. For some twenty years of his early manhood, he conducted the
bakery business on the former large scale and handed it to his son
unimpaired. Besides the enterprises of his pioneer life, he was a
shipowner and business man at large. Although possessed of great
wealth for his time, he so managed to distribute his property in his
lifetime that little more than cattle and movables remained to be
disposed of after his death, which personal estate was left to his
wife Joanna, the executrix. In his will is the following clause:
“one cow and six sheep to be delivered unto John Rogers, son of
brother John Rogers, to be disposed of as I have ordered him.” Also
the executrix is to act with the advice of above said John Rogers
and Samuel Fox, “oldest son of my brother Samuel Fox” (husband of
Bathsheba). At the writing of this will, February 13, 1713, the
testator states that he is in “perfect health.”

1714.

Mary, the second wife of John Rogers, was, a number of years since,
married to Robert Jones of Block Island.[123] It is now fifteen
years since John Rogers took her for his wife and twelve years since
their enforced separation. He has recently become attached to an
estimable widow, by the name of Sarah Cole, of Oyster Bay, L.I., a
member of the Quaker Society of that locality. Although favorable to
his suit, she is yet inclined to hesitate, on account of rumors that
have been circulated in regard to his separation from Mary. In his
prompt, straightforward way, he desires her to accompany him to
Block Island, to learn from Mary herself if she has anything to say
against him. This request is so reassuring, that the publication of
their marriage intentions takes place at New London, July 4, 1714
(“Hempstead Diary”), after which they visit Mary at her home on
Block Island. Mary gives Mrs. Cole so favorable an account of John
Rogers and the treatment she herself received from him, that the
ceremony is performed by Justice Wright before they leave the
island.

Footnote 123:

See John Rogers, 2d, Part I., Chapter V.

[There is evidence, from the court records and testimony of Peter
Pratt,[124] that this wife, Sarah, was of attractive personality,
also that she was a zealous religious co-worker with her husband,
and that they lived happily together at Mamacock, with John, Jr.,
and his family and the two children of Mary.]

Footnote 124:

“Prey Taken from the Strong.”

CHAPTER IX.

1716.

One of the spasmodic attempts to secure more strict enforcement of
ecclesiastical laws is instituted about this period. Edicts have
been issued by the General Court charging the various officials to
observe greater stringency in the execution of all these laws. That
this sudden and severe pull on the rein does not occasion a general
and continued uprising on the part of the Rogerenes, is only
explainable on the supposition that the first attempt to lay hands
on them anew having brought forth the countermove, the authorities
have thought best to desist from further serious molestation. The
particulars of this countermove are as follows:—

April 22, 1716, there is an entry into the Congregational
meetinghouse by John Rogers and his wife Sarah, John Bolles and his
wife Sarah, John Culver and his wife Sarah, and several others,
names not given. The cause of the disturbance is, as usual in
affairs of this kind, studiously ignored on the court records; but
evidently—as afterwards indicated—this entry, with scriptural
testimony not revealed, was occasioned by the breaking up of
Rogerene meetings by the town authorities, with the accompanying
feature, a church-party mob. As has been seen, the Rogerene
meetings, not being among those allowed by law, can at any time be
broken up at the pleasure or caprice of the authorities, and their
continued existence has depended, not upon the willing forbearance
of the ecclesiastical rulers, nor, to any really saving extent, upon
the public sympathy enlisted in their favor; but chiefly upon that
formidable reserve power—the entrance into the meeting-house, with
scriptural testimony.

Proof of the exact date of this countermove and that the
before-mentioned persons were concerned in it, is contained in the
“Hempstead Diary” and a record of the General Court in the following
month (May). By the latter record, Governor Saltonstall, referring
in this assembly to the offense committed by the said persons,
states that they are now in New London jail.[125] The governor also
states that he learns, from “relatives” of the prisoners, that they
were ignorant of the provisions, under the law of 1708 (see Chapter
VII.), relating to those who soberly dissent. Probably said
relatives have been far more ignorant of this law than have any of
the Rogerenes, who are naturally watching all ecclesiastical
regulations with lynx-like vigilance and are particularly aware that
there is no relief for their Society in this law, as allowed in the
Colony of Connecticut. The governor knows just what the Rogerenes
know in this regard. But he goes on to order that the said prisoners
be released—ostensibly on the ground of this ignorance declared by
their friends—and says, in case they behave themselves orderly and
rest contented with the liberty of worship given them under said
law, they shall not be prosecuted.

Footnote 125:

In fact, the wife of John Rogers was discharged the day after the
occurrence. She, being a regular Quaker, came under different laws
from the Rogerenes and appears to have been treated with some
leniency. Her coming from the State of New York and from a
prominent Quaker community in that State may have had something to
do with this leniency.

All this on the part of the governor doubtless sounds very plausible
and very indulgent, to the uninitiated. He is evidently very glad of
some excuse to release the prisoners. So much of a hornet’s nest has
been aroused, about this time, that not even the disturbance of the
Congregational meeting, less than two weeks before, is considered
sufficient ground for detaining them longer in prison or imposing
any more serious fine than payment of their prison fees.

By the joint testimony of Peter Pratt and John Rogers, 2d, it is
shown that the governor distinctly stated before the Assembly at
this time that the Rogerenes should be allowed to worship God
according to their consciences, if they would refrain from
disturbing Congregational worship, and that he would punish any who
should disturb their worship.[126] Here is something tangible, as
opposed to the ambiguity of the court record; it not only indicates
that the April countermove was a direct result of interference with
Rogerene meetings, but that said countermove had been productive of
a decisive advantage. In short, interference with their meetings had
caused the countermove, the countermove had forced the governor to
himself promise them immunity from further interference of this
sort, on condition that they would not exercise their reserve power.

Footnote 126:

“And first I grant that the governor did actually make this
promise, viz., that, to persuade us to forbear, if we would be
quiet and worship God in our own way according to our consciences,
he would punish any of their people that should disturb our
worship,—and that it was in a Public Court before a multitude of
hearers.”—_John Rogers, 2d._

We find after intimation by John, 2d, that this promise of the
governor was not kept.

1719.

Three years have now passed, with no record of any disturbance of
the Congregational meetings, and of nothing, in fact, to show how
matters are progressing that concern Rogerene history, unless it be
the total lack of court notice. It is at least a season of patient
endurance and forbearance on the part of the Rogerenes, so far as
the ordinary distrainments are concerned. About this time, there is
talk of a proposed rebuilding, or enlargement, of the Congregational
meeting-house, which will occasion a new levy on the Rogerenes, with
the usual wholesale seizure of property. But something more serious
than this now occurs, the exact nature of which is hidden from our
view. The disturbing move is made by the town authorities, under
some one of the Sunday laws, and the victim is Sarah, wife of John
Bolles, her infringement of this Sunday law being “a matter of
conscience” on her part.

It must be borne in mind that under the ecclesiastical laws, to
whose unscriptural character it is the mission of this sect to bear
testimony at all hazards, punishments far beyond the letter of said
laws are frequently being inflicted upon the Rogerenes. The
following from John Bolles throws light upon this subject:—

When a poor man hath had but one milch cow for his family’s
support, it hath been taken away; or when he hath had only a
small beast to kill for his family, it hath been taken from him,
to answer a fine for going to a meeting of his own Society, or
to defray the charges of a cruel whipping for going to such a
meeting, or things of this nature. Yea, twelve or fourteen
pounds worth of estate hath been taken to defray the charges of
one such cruel whipping, without making any return as the law
directs. Yea, fourscore and odd sheep have been taken from a
man, being all his flock; a team taken from the plow, with all
its furniture and led away. But I am not now giving a particular
account, for it would contain a book of a large volume to relate
all that hath been taken from us, and as unreasonable and
boundless as these; besides the cruelties inflicted on our
bodies and many long imprisonments....

Here we see something of those things which never appear upon the
court records and of whose “boundless”ness we only now and then
catch a glimpse, by some side-light like this or by a Rogerene
entrance into the meeting-house, the latter effect always pointing
to some unbearable wrong as its cause. To continue with this
statement of John Bolles:—

“and many long imprisonments, of which I shall mention one woman,
when she was condemned by a judge in a case of conscience; because
she stopped her ears and would not hearken to his sentence, as not
belonging to him to judge in such cases, but with a cheerful
spirit sang praises to God, and then turned to the judge and said
that if he went on persecuting God’s people God’s judgments would
come upon him and his.”

There are among the Rogerenes many sweet singers, who sing hymns and
psalms in certain meetings of their Society. It appears (by aid of
above statement) that Sarah, wife of John Bolles, is one of these;
for, by a Superior Court record of September 22, 1719, it is shown
that Sarah Bolles is summoned from prison before that court

“to answer for reflecting upon the proceedings of a court held in
New London,[127] in saying to one of the judges thereof, viz.:
Rich. Christophers, Esq.: Now look to yourself for God’s judgments
will surely come upon you, for your unjust judgments for
persecuting God’s people—Said Sarah, being asked whether she was
guilty or not guilty of the crime for which she was committed,
refused to make any plea. Whereupon said Sarah Bolles shall suffer
two month’s imprisonment” (in addition to the four already
endured) “and pay the charges of her prosecution and stand
committed till the said charge be paid, viz.: £1 19_s._”

Footnote 127:

About four months before and evidently a town court and the one
referred to by John Bolles.

So this heroic woman, who has ten children at home, five of whom are
under ten years of age, is returned to prison, not only for the two
months, but until she pay the charges of her prosecution, which the
court, as well as her own people, have good reason to believe she
will never pay, thus to encourage the authorities in their
unchristian persecution of the Rogerenes. John Bolles goes on to
say, regarding this woman, whose name he does not reveal:—

Whereupon said judge condemned her to prison, where after further
determination, [viz.: above Superior Court sentence] she was
required to remain till she should pay the charge of her
prosecution, so called, and there continued six months, till God
made way by moving the hearts of the people with compassion for
her deliverence, by seeing her affliction; she being not only
locked up in prison but also a high boarded fence round the
prison, locked also,[128] and the prison keeper living near half a
mile from the prison, it being an extreme cold winter, and in the
height of it she miscarried, being without any help nor could call
for any, her husband living about a mile and a half from the
prison and was not suffered to come to her; as if God suffered
such things to be done to lay conviction before all faces. But
after her release she was carried home on her bed in a cart and
after some time she was, thro’ God’s goodness, restored to health
again.

Footnote 128:

Here is recognizable the “inner prison” described by John Rogers.

About two weeks previous to this appearance of Sarah Bolles before
the Superior Court, there occurred a Rogerene countermove which is
directly traceable to her imprisonment. This countermove took place
September 6, after Sarah had been nearly four months in prison. It
must have been known to the Rogerenes, and to the authorities as
well, that she was with child, which, together with the fact that
the youngest of the ten children needing her at home is but two
years of age,[129] made this long imprisonment in “a matter of
conscience,” with the impending appearance before the Superior Court
on charge of contempt, especially aggravating. The circumstances
called for some imperative action on the part of her friends, the
more so, because no mercy could be expected from the judge of the
Superior Court.

Footnote 129:

This child was Joshua Bolles, grandfather of Mr. John R. Bolles.

The persons accused of entering the meeting-house on this 6th of
September, are John Rogers and his wife, Sarah, wife of John Culver,
John Bolles, John Rogers, Jr., Andrew Davis and Esther Culver. The
records relative to this countermove are in the minutes of the
November session of the County Court in New London. First, that on
September 6, while Mr. Adams was at public prayer, John Rogers, Sr.,
entered the meeting-house and interrupted the service in a loud
voice.[130] (No slightest clew is given to the words spoken.) He
pleads “not guilty” and is fined £20 and charges, £3. The record
states that, upon this (November) trial, he “behaved himself
contemptuously, coming into court in a violent manner and raving
voice, saying, ‘What have you to say to me, etc.’ (would we might
have the words in place of the ‘etc.’) and when the indictment (not
revealed) was read, he cried out That’s a ly, and upon that part of
the indictment (part not revealed) when read he again cried out,
‘That’s a devilish ly,’ and by abusing one of the members of the
court in saying to him, upon said justice’s affirmation, several
times that’s a ly, and for several other abusive demeanors” in the
court-room (unfortunately not described), he is sentenced to pay
20_s._—he who so often for no more contempt than this has been fined
£20. (Moreover, as late as May 25, of the following year, it is on
record that “execution” for this 20_s._ was “returned with nothing
acted upon it.” In this insignificant fine is visible the sympathy
of a jury, and in the lack of “execution” the fact that no collector
is willing to collect this fine, although he may be himself fined
for the omission.) The record continues:—“John Rogers demands a
present appeal to the King’s bench.” “Court consider that no such
appeal lies.”

Footnote 130:

The following is from the “Hempstead Diary:”—“1719, Sept. 6, Sun.
Jno. Rogers and his crew made a disturbance—the midst of prayer
time They came in a horse cart. Committed to prison at night.”

Sarah, wife of John Rogers, is also presented at this November court
for having come into the meeting-house, on the same occasion
(September 6), and “interrupted Mr. Adams by speaking several words
in a loud voice.” The court having considered the evidence in this
case and that said Sarah has “behaved herself competently well
before the court and also pleading ignorance of the laws and methods
of this government, and considering her also under covert and that
she has been committed to prison until this court,” sentence her to
pay a fine of 10_s._ and prison fees, £3. Sarah, wife of John
Culver, for same offense on same occasion, same fine and fee. John
Bolles “for breach of Sabbath” on same day (form of breach not
stated), same fine and charge as the women. Andrew Davis, Esther
Culver and John Rogers, Jr., same charge and fines as John Bolles.

For the two months previous to this November court, John Rogers and
his wife, Sarah Culver, John Bolles and the others have been
confined in prison. All these people know, at the date of this
November court, that Sarah Bolles has not only lost her child, but
is lying at the point of death in the “inner prison.” Well might the
leader of the Society in whose cause she has so suffered and
endured, when he at length escaped from prison and had an
opportunity to speak in public, employ such scathing words as
befitted the occasion.

(From this court scene as described by Peter Pratt,—see Chapter
XIV.,—are derived the statements that John Rogers and his followers
were accustomed to accuse dignitaries of lying.)

After all the verdicts in this case have been rendered, Sarah, wife
of John Culver, knowing so much more of this season of persecution
and the legal (and illegal) proceedings than is possible to
outsiders, indignantly exclaims in court: “You are an adulterous
generation and I hope God will find you out” (by Court Record), for
which the court sentences her to receive fifteen stripes on the
naked body and to pay charges for the same.

Nor is this the end of the matter. Sarah Bolles, despite all
protest, still lies at the point of death in the cold and dismal
“inner prison.” What can yet be done by this non-resistant people?
They may not, by their principles, even waylay the jailer, seize his
keys, hold him for a time in durance, and so rescue Sarah Bolles.
But, upheld by the public sympathy now enlisted, they can head a
resolved company of men and women, break down the gate of the prison
fence, and, aided by the Rogerenes within the jail, force open the
prison doors and bring out the helpless captive. This is exactly
what takes place.

Before this same November court is at an end, complaint is made to
said court by the keeper of the prison, that “John Culver, John
Culver, Jr., Bathsheba, wife of John Rogers, Jr., and Mary Rogers,
daughter of John Rogers, Sr., did, on the 26th and 27th of this
Nov.” (viz., at midnight) “stave down part of the prison yard.” A
significant ending of this record is that for this misdemeanor John
Culver and his son are to pay only 10_s._ and charges, and Bathsheba
and Mary to pay only the charges of their prosecution, also that
John Rogers and the others still in prison are not brought before
this court at all. All this shows the extent of public sympathy at
the time, especially in regard to those concerned in the September
countermove.

The court record does not inform us that Sarah Bolles was rescued
from the prison by this raid and carried home in a cart; neither
does it inform us that the company headed by the persons tried for
this daring deed contained others besides Rogerenes, whose
approbation was enlisted by the danger of a second murder being
committed in that prison, through cruel neglect. Only by the public
sympathy exhibited on this occasion can the facts be accounted for
that no action is taken by the court regarding the escaped prisoner
and no record of her escape made.

John Rogers had been returned to prison on account of non-payment of
the £23, for disturbance of meeting. John, Jr., John Bolles and the
others were in prison also for non-payment of smaller fines, for the
same offense. Thus the attack from outside the prison lacked the
usual leadership; yet that these prisoners were concerned in the
rescue, from a position within the prison, is shown by a record of
the General Court of November 30, to the effect that, at a special
meeting of the Governor and Council, of that date, “it is ordered
that the fines and penalties incurred by John Rogers etc.” (“etc.”
doubtless including the others tried with John Rogers for the
September countermove) “on account of recent tumultuous and riotous
proceedings of which said prisoners have been guilty, be
applied—upon collection of same—to the extraordinary charge which
they have occasioned the county by said proceedings.” This “charge”
evidently refers to repairs of the prison which was broken into
three days before in behalf of Sarah Bolles. Why the Culvers and
Mary and Bathsheba were brought before the County Court (where they
were so lightly fined) and “John Rogers, Sr. etc.” dealt with by a
special court can only be conjectured. It is not unlikely that this
raid upon the jail resulted also in the rescue of Sarah Culver from
the stripes. The fact that her husband and son acted with the women
indicates such a possibility.

As has been seen, the arrest of Sarah Bolles was for some so-called
“breach of Sabbath.”[131] Certainly she could not have been
ploughing or carting. Had she been spinning at the door of her home,
or had she ventured to walk some distance over the Norwich road to
visit one of her friends? In either case, this would be no more than
she had been doing ever since 1707; yet either of these acts would
have furnished legal ground for her arrest. The only way to account
for the proceedings against her is by supposition of another of the
spasmodic attempts to intimidate and repress Rogerene leadership.
That Sarah Bolles deserves the name of a leader in this Society is
evident.

Footnote 131:

See Appendix for “Request of John Rogers from New London Prison,
November 17, 1719,” which seems to be connected with this charge
against Sarah Bolles.

One of the most serious grievances of the Rogerenes, since
they began to hold their services on Sunday, is that, although
the Congregationalists are allowed to go long distances to
Congregational meetings, the Rogerenes are arrested for
travelling any considerable distance to meetings of their own
persuasion. From the fact that they hold their meetings in
private houses, such services are sometimes at one house and
sometimes at another, and, as they are widely scattered
(outside the nucleus at Quaker Hill), some of the members are
always liable to travel some distance.

On Sunday, December 13, two weeks after the November trial just
described, a young Rogerene, by the name of John Waterhouse, has the
audacity to appear at the door of the Congregational meeting-house,
and, “standing within the ground sill, in sermon time,” to exclaim:
“I am come to enter complaint that I am stopped on the King’s
highway.”[132] He has availed himself of the one efficient mode of
defense, the Rogerene countermove.

Footnote 132:

The following, from Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Justice Backus,
appears to indicate the usual manner of this interference,
although referring, in this particular case, to the church at
Norwich.—“And several times since, when we have passed by their
meeting-house along the road towards our own meeting, their
constable has prest a considerable number of men out of their
meeting house, who with horses have followed hard after us with
ungoverned zeal, and have stopped us and made prisoners of us for
the sake of our religion.”

1720.

The proof of this courageous stand of John Waterhouse, while the
leading Rogerenes are in prison, is from records of the County
Court, June, 1720. By these records it is also shown that some three
months after the above offense (and apparently while out on bail,
pending trial in June) this same young man “blew a horn or shell
near the meeting-house, while the congregation were singing,” and,
refusing to give bond for appearance at the County Court in June,
“with good behavior in meantime,” is arrested and imprisoned.

At this same June court, the offender is brought from prison, and
being charged with the first offense, of December 13, refuses to
reply to the question “guilty or not guilty.”[133] The court now
proceeds to give judgment, “on a nihil dicit,” of £20 fine, with
charges of prosecution, and if he do not immediately pay or give
surety he “shall be let out,” until the same is paid. The same
judgment, upon a nihil dicit, is pronounced in regard to the blowing
of the horn, viz.: fine of £20, which if not paid he is to be let
out, etc.

Footnote 133:

It was the Rogerene custom when arraigned for countermove
offenses, either to make no reply to this court query or to reply
“not guilty,” in the sense of having done nothing wrong. We
occasionally find John Bolles replying that he will “be judged by
God and not by man.”

Yet this very act of blowing a horn on Sunday near a meeting-house,
in time of service, is among the offenses enumerated upon the law
book as finable by only 40_s._, which is all the young man had
reason to expect. Here are more than £40 for this young man to pay,
or go to common servitude for a long period.

Nor is this all that is charged against John Waterhouse at this June
court. He is examined on suspicion of being concerned in a most
astonishing performance, in the month previous (May 4), viz.: the
“opening and carrying away of the doors of the prison” to which the
clarion blast had consigned him, and in which he had been confined
something over a month. At date of this June court, said doors have
“not yet been found.” It is also stated that, during this
imprisonment, he had made his escape from the prison several
times—and, of course, he had escaped again at the time of the
opening of the doors. He pleads “not guilty” regarding the doors,
probably, as do other Rogerenes in such cases, admitting no guilt in
doing that which they consider right, however contrary it may be to
the law. Fortunately for the romance, he does not satisfy the court
that he had no hand in said damage and disappearance. The jailer is
to recover from him the value of the prison doors “as they were,
with the locks on them,” which is £5. With charge of prosecution and
another fine of £20 for this offense, added to his previous fines,
more than £70 are required of this young man at this June court. £70
represents a snug little fortune (at this date), enough to buy a
good farm “with mansion house thereon.” This is the more preparing
him for life-long opposition to ecclesiastical government, an
opposition which is to be transmitted undiminished to his
descendants. (For this young man is to be the founder of the
Quakertown community, that “remnant” which, in the words of Rev.
Abel McEwen, “exists in a neighboring town.”)

Since John Waterhouse is to be so potent a factor in Rogerene
history, let us scrutinize him as closely as the scanty glimpses
permit. Is he not some young scapegrace, allied to the Rogerenes for
love of their so venturesome and exciting life? So he might be
judged, but for the preamble of one old deed of gift on the New
London records, despite the fact that he is a son of Jacob
Waterhouse and grandson of Mr. Robert Douglass,[134] two of the most
substantial citizens of New London and members of the Congregational
church. Jacob Waterhouse, in 1717, singled out this son John to
receive, by deed of gift, the family homestead, “my father’s
habitation,[135] near the mill bridge,” as well as a valuable tract
of land at “Foxen’s Hill” on the river; not because he was his
oldest son, but “for love and appreciation of his dutiful behavior.”
It is, then, the dutiful son of a wealthy and honorable citizen of
New London who was arraigned as above at the June court in 1720.
Surely it would not be wise to omit visiting upon this renegade
youth dire punishment for his bold espousal of Rogerene faith and
Rogerene methods, lest other promising young men of the
Congregational fold should dare to venture upon a like career.

Footnote 134:

Jacob Waterhouse married Ann Douglass (daughter of Mr. Robert
Douglass and Mary Hempstead, daughter of Robert Hempstead). John
was their oldest child, born, 1690.

Footnote 135:

Viz., homestead of Jacob Waterhouse, 1st, one of the planters of
New London.

But we are not yet through with this interesting June court. John
Bolles is here arraigned, on a like suspicion of being concerned in
opening and carrying away those prison doors “that have not yet been
found.” For declining, at the time of their disappearance, “to give
any reply to inquiries made of him concerning that matter” he has
been imprisoned until now. He now pleads “not guilty,” which of
itself might mean that he acknowledges no guilt in the matter; but
his wife is present to testify that he was at home upon the night of
this romantic occurrence, also Esther Waterhouse,[136] “who lodged
at John Bolle’s that night,” testifies to the same effect; upon
which John Bolles is to be discharged, on payment of costs of
prosecution and prison fees. One can but marvel that John Bolles did
not in the first place avail himself of this so convenient
testimony, and thus escape imprisonment and expense. Also, why were
not those noted prison breakers, John Rogers, Sr. and Jr.,
arraigned, on suspicion of complicity in this matter? Had they no
hand in this achievement, or were their tracks so well covered that
no slightest clew could be discovered by the authorities? Did John
Bolles, knowing he had evidence to clear himself at sitting of the
June court, allow himself to be imprisoned on this suspicion, in
order to draw attention from the true culprits?

Footnote 136:

Daughter of John Culver and recently married to John Waterhouse.

Sometime in this year is printed, in Boston, “The Book of the
Revelation of Jesus Christ,” by John Rogers, Sr.[137]

Footnote 137:

Here it may be well to refer to the mode of distribution of the
works of this author. He appears to have himself carried many of
them about New England, going long journeys on horseback, the
books in his portmanteau. This not only gave him opportunity to
circulate his writings more extensively, but to discourse with
people at a distance, and also to preach in various places. He
must in such, as well as in other more evident ways, have been
extensively known and famous in his day. This accounts for his
dedication of the above-mentioned volume “To the Flock Scattered
Throughout New England.” John Bolles circulated many of his own
books in like manner.

CHAPTER X.

1721.

1721. _Feb. 26, Sunday._—The Quakers at Meeting made a great
disturbance; especially Sarah Bolles.—_Hempstead Diary._

Mr. Hempstead, in his usual brief style of chronicle, gives no
further light upon this matter. By the records of the County Court,
in the following June, it is shown that the Quakers referred to in
the Diary were John Bolles, his wife Sarah and John Waterhouse, and
that the impelling reason for this countermove was because John
Waterhouse had been seized and maltreated for baptizing Joseph
Bolles, eldest son of John and Sarah, now twenty years of age, who,
on entering upon a religious life, had, with the approval of his
father and mother and the rest of the Society to which his whole
family belonged, selected this young leader to baptize him.

Had any Rogerene been selected to perform this baptism other than
the “dutiful” son who had recently left the Congregational church to
join the nonconformists, it is probable there would have been no
such unusual interference; since such baptisms have been constantly
taking place for years, and there is no record of any other
disturbance of this character.

Extensive improvements have now been completed in the Congregational
meeting-house, almost equivalent to a rebuilding of that edifice.
From the Rogerenes has been taken the usual unreasonable amount of
property on this account; in the case of John Rogers, three of his
best fat cattle together with shoes that, sold cheap at an “outcry,”
brought 30_s._ It seems high time, after so many years of exorbitant
tribute to a ministry of which these people have no approbation,
that some more effectual effort should be made than the simple
refusal to pay such taxes, which has practically greatly increased
their loss, by leaving them utterly at the mercy of the collectors.

A plan is now devised to fit this emergency, yet one much less
aggressive than the ordinary countermove and indicative of a spirit
of compromise on the part of the Rogerenes, despite the fact that
one of their recent baptisms has been so seriously interfered with
and their friends concerned therein are to be tried at the next
sitting of the County Court. A representative number of them will
appear at noontime in the meeting-house, which they have been forced
to assist in rebuilding, and endeavor to hold a meeting of their own
between the regular services. Undoubtedly, they expect to be
prevented from entering the church at all; but the appeal for their
rights in the premises will be made none the less evident and
eloquent by such prevention. If they do succeed in entering, the
familiar riot will ensue, occasioned by putting them out in a
violent manner, carrying them to prison, etc. In that case, they
will be fined “for making a riot,” and tried and sentenced for the
same; but their cause will be all the better advertised, at home and
abroad.

_April 23, 1721, Sacrament Day._—John Rogers came into the
meeting-house and preached between meetings, his crew with
him.—_Hempstead Diary._

By this, it is shown that the first attempt at this new style of
countermove was on the above day, and, by the absence of any court
record regarding this occurrence, it further appears that, either
because it was “sacrament day,” or because the governor was out of
town, or from both causes, no resistance was made to this noon entry
or to the preaching by John Rogers that followed, each of the
Rogerenes occupying his or her own seat as set off in the
meeting-house.

Upon the next Sunday, they appear in like manner,[138] just as the
Congregational service is breaking up. As Mr. Adams and the others
come out, they politely state their purpose of holding another
meeting of their own between the Congregational services. No
objection being made, they enter and take their places in the seats
assigned them. The governor is surely at hand on this occasion, and
none can be more expectant of dire consequences to the offenders
than are the heroic band themselves. But even Governor Saltonstall
cannot well proceed without the issue of a warrant, which he must
hasten to procure. In these critical circumstances, the dauntless
leader proceeds to expound certain Scriptures to his little audience
of twelve Rogerenes, with, doubtless, some curious spectators also.

Footnote 138:

“John Rogers and several of his Society (having as good a right to
the New London meeting-house as any in the town) did propose to
hold our meeting there at noon-time, between the meeting of the
other congregation, so as not to disturb them in either of their
meetings. And, accordingly, we met there, and finding their
meeting not ended, we stood without the door until their forenoon
meeting was ended and the people came out, and then John Rogers
told them our design was to make no disturbance, but to hold our
meeting while they were at dinner, and when they were ready for
the afternoon meeting we would desist and go away. Whereupon I
heard no person manifest any dislike of our proceedings.
Whereupon, John Rogers went into the seat which the town officers
seated him in after the meeting house was built” (viz., rebuilt)
“and proceeded to expound a chapter in the Bible. But in the time
of our meeting, the constable was sent with a warrant to break up
our meeting, and was attended with a rude company of men, who
began to haul men and women out of meeting, committing some to
prison, as did Paul in his unconverted state. And when Sarah
Bolles saw the constable and his attendant carrying her husband to
prison by his arms and legs, with his belly downward, in a very
cruel manner, she and Josiah Gates, another of our Society, went
to the Governor minding him of his late promise to defend us in
our meetings from any that should disturb us and desired him that
her husband might not be so abused, but all the relief they had,
Josiah Gates received a box on the ear from the governor’s own
hand, and they were both turned out of doors by the governor, and
the next day the governor sat judge himself of the matter and
bound over J. Rogers to the County Court, charging him with a
riot, though all he did was to expound a chapter as aforesaid, and
all that his people did was to attend to his exposition, in as
quiet a manner as was ever in any meeting in the king’s dominions,
till the constable with his rude attendants made the disturbance.
However, the court fined John Rogers 10 shillings and the charges.
Execution was given out, and the sheriff first took ten sheep and
then a milch cow”—“And I do further add that I know of no
protection that we have met with from the authority, relating to
our worship but what has been of the same nature.”—_Reply of John
Rogers, 2d, to Peter Pratt._

For account of the same by John Rogers, Sr., see Part I., Chapter
V.

A constable soon appears upon the scene, and the excitable and
riotous portion of the church party are now at liberty to make an
uproar and assist in the seizure and abuse. John Bolles is carried
out and to jail by the arms and legs, face downward. His wife Sarah
and one of the Rogerene men, Josiah Gates, hasten to the house of
the governor, near by, where they remind him of his public promise
(Chapter IX.) not to break up their meetings provided they do not
disturb the Congregational church services, and Mrs. Bolles begs
that her husband may not be thus abused.

Considering the towering rage of the governor over this strategic
move on the part of the nonconformists, and the plea of the
petitioners regarding non-disturbance of Congregational services,
the box on the ear which Josiah Gates receives from the hand of the
governor and the summary turning of the two petitioners out of doors
is a natural sequence.

The next day, the governor binds John Rogers and John Bolles over to
the June court.

By the records of the County Court in June, we find John Rogers and
John Bolles called to answer “for unlawful and riotous entrance into
the meeting-house on April 30, with other persons to the number of
twelve.” They plead “not guilty” (viz.: to any riotous entering or
to any guilt in entering). The court finds both guilty; John Bolles
is to pay a fine of £5, and cost of prosecution £3. John Rogers,
having taken the precaution to demand trial by jury, is to pay a
fine of only 10_s._, and cost of prosecution £1 18_s._, which gives
us the popular verdict in the case. Yet for this fine the sheriff
took ten sheep and a milch cow. In this way, the executives got the
better of a sympathetic jury.

At this June court, John Bolles and his wife are arraigned for
having disturbed the congregation “in February last” (upon occasion
of the Congregational interference with the baptism of their son
Joseph by John Waterhouse). The court, “having heard what each has
to offer and the evidence against them, adjudge each to pay a fine
of £20 and costs of prosecution £1.”

As for John Waterhouse, he is first tried for having disturbed the
Congregational meeting (after the church interference with said
baptism, February 26) and is to pay same fine and charges as John
Bolles and wife for this offense. Accordingly the cost of Joseph’s
baptism reaches £65. No wonder that Joseph Bolles is to become a
leader among the Rogerenes and eventually prominent in a great
countermove that is to shake the Congregational church of New
London.

John Waterhouse is also tried for “assuming a pretended
administration of the ordinance of baptism to one Joseph Bolles of
New London” and “that in time thereof he made use of these words: ‘I
baptize thee into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.’” “The matter
of fact against him being fully proven” and “he having been
imprisoned” (apparently until the sitting of this court), he is now
sentenced to be whipped ten stripes on the naked body for having
performed this baptism.

It is well for the Rogerene Society that so courageous and talented
a man as John Waterhouse has given himself to the Christian service
in this contest for religious liberty. The days of their great
leader are now numbered, although he is still, at seventy-three
years of age, in full health and vigor, despite his fifteen years of
imprisonment during the last forty-six years, and many other trials
and sufferings induced by merciless punishments.

Prominent among the noticeable facts in this man’s history is his
faithful Christian ministry, a ministry copied closely from New
Testament precept and example. Here is a pastor who in obedience to
the command to visit the sick has been ever ready to hasten
fearlessly to the bedsides of victims of the most dreaded contagion,
to render aid temporal or spiritual; although not himself an immune,
unless God so decree. He could be called upon in any circumstance of
misfortune, wherever a friend was needed, to serve, to comfort, or
advise. He has assisted the poor from the earnings of his own hands.
He has visited the widows and the fatherless and those in prison. He
has been at all the charges of his own ministry, by the fruits of
his own industry. Since it has been claimed by him and his
followers, on Scriptural authority, that faith and prayer are more
efficacious in the healing of the sick than are the advice and
prescriptions of earthly physicians, how often for this purpose must
his prayers have been required.

A few months later than the events narrated in previous portions of
this chapter, occurs the great smallpox pestilence in Boston. At
this time, John Rogers is having published in that city his book
entitled “A Midnight Cry,” and also his “Answer to R. Wadsworth.” If
he has need to go to Boston, on business connected with these
publications, it is certain, by the character of the man, that he
will not hesitate, but rather hasten, that he may, in the general
panic there, render some assistance. Even if he has no business
occasion for such a visit, it will not matter, provided he judges
the Master’s command to visit the sick calls him to Boston. Since
his conversion in 1674, he has made a practice of visiting those
afflicted with this contagion so shunned by others, yet has never
been attacked by the disease. He believes the promise that God will
preserve His faithful children to the full age of threescore years
and ten unless called to offer up their lives in martyrdom, and that
when, at last, in His good pleasure, He shall call them, it matters
not by what disease or what accident He takes them hence. Surely
death could come in no better way than in some especial obedience to
His command.[139]

Footnote 139:

In the first place, he (J. Backus) asserts that our infallible
spirit deceived us as it did john Rogers, who pretended from the
inspiration that he was proof against all infection of body etc.
Now I am fully persuaded that John Rogers never spake those words,
but that J. Backus is highly guilty of slandering him in his grave
concerning this matter. He also adds that to put the matter upon
trial he daringly ventured into Boston in the time of the small
pox, but received the infection and died of it, with several of
his family.

Now how presumptuous and censorious a judgment it is for him to
assert that his going to Boston was daringly to put the matter
upon trial, when it was well known that it had been his practice
for more than forty years past to visit all sick persons as often
as he had opportunity, and particularly those who had the small
pox; when in the height of their distemper he has sat on their
bedside several hours at a time, discoursing of the things of God;
so that his going to Boston the last time, was no other than his
constant practice had been ever since he made a profession of
religion. Now it is certain that John Rogers in his lifetime, and
all his Society to this day, do firmly believe, from the testimony
of the Scriptures, that God’s protection is with his faithful
children through the course of this life, to continue them to old
age (notwithstanding the calamities that he sends on the earth),
except when He calls them to lay down their lives for his truth by
way of martyrdom, as may be seen abundantly in Scripture, Job 5,
26. Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, like as a shock of
corn cometh in his season. Psalm 91, 16, With long life will I
satisfy him etc. Now the age of man is set forth in Scripture to
be seventy years, as is to be seen Psal. 90, 10.

Now although we have the Scripture plentifully to confirm us in
this principle of God’s protecting his faithful children to old
age etc., yet we know it is appointed for all men once to die,
according to what is written Heb. 9, 27, and by what manner of
death it may please God to take them to himself, after he hath
preserved them to old age, he has not revealed, and therefore
neither J. Rogers in his lifetime, nor any of his Society since
his death, has undertaken to decide the matter; judging it to be
one of those secret things which God hath not revealed to us, and
therefore is not our business to meddle with, according to what is
written, Deut. 28, 29. The secret things belong unto the Lord our
God; but those things that are revealed belong unto us &c.

Now let every unprejudiced reader take notice how little cause J.
Backus has to reflect John Roger’s manner of death upon him, who
lived to the age of seventy-three years, and then died in his own
house on his own bed, having his reason continued to the last, and
manifesting his peace with God and perfect assurance of a better
life. He had also a very easy death, without any struggling or
striving as is common to many people.—_Answer of John Rogers, 2d,
to J. Backus._

If after an immunity of more than forty years, not only to himself
but to his household, he takes cheery leave of family and friends,
ere mounting his horse for the long journey, it is no wonder, nor if
they take a like cheerful view of his departure. The Lord may bring
him safely back, as so often before, even though his seventieth year
is past. Yet—it may be that this call of the Master is to prove his
faithfulness unto death.

His horse stands saddled by the roadside, with portmanteau packed
for a brave and kindly stay, God willing, with the suffering and the
forsaken. He is ready even to his jackboots, and his faithful watch
tells him it is time for the start.[140] We look for no tremor here,
even when he speaks the last farewell, but for the cheery word, the
tender glance, the fervent grasp of the hand, the committal to God
of those he holds dearest on earth, the agile spring to the saddle,
and a still erect and manly figure vanishing at the turn of the
road. It is not unlikely that a cavalcade of brethren accompany him
some miles on his way.

Footnote 140:

In Inventory, watch, portmanteau and jackboots, also besides
saddle, etc., a “male pillion,” indicating a frequent companion in
his journeyings.

On and on, from the health-giving breezes of Mamacock, towards the
plague-stricken city. Once there,—would we might follow him in his
ministrations, even to that day when he remounts his horse for the
homeward journey. Has the contagion so abated by the middle of
October that he is no longer needed, or can he indeed be aware that
he himself is attacked by the disease? Would it be possible for a
man, after he had become sensible that the malady was upon him, to
take the journey on horseback from Boston to New London? All that is
known for a certainty is that after he reaches home the disease has
developed. It seems probable that he was permitted to complete his
mission in Boston and to leave there unconscious of the insidious
attack awaiting him. Why was he stricken down at the close of this
faithful effort to obey the command of the Master in the face of
scorn and peril? One important result is to ensue. The unfaltering
trust of the Rogerenes in an all-powerful and all-loving God is to
be shown remaining as firm as though John Rogers had returned to
them unscathed, and this unswerving trust in God’s promises, under
circumstances calculated to shake such a trust to the uttermost, is
to be attested over and over by the records of Connecticut.

Fast and far is spread the alarm that John Rogers, just returned
from his foolhardy visit to Boston, is prostrated at Mamacock with
the dread contagion. There are in the house, including himself,
thirteen persons. Adding the servants who live in separate houses on
the place, it is easy to swell the number to “upwards of twenty.”
The large farm, spreading upon both sides of the road, is itself a
place of isolation. On the east is a broad river, separating it from
the uninhabited Groton bank. On the north is wooded, uninhabited,
Scotch Cap.[141] There is possibly a dwelling within half a mile at
the northwest. A half-mile to the south is the house of John Bolles.
What few other neighbors there may be, are well removed, and there
are dwellings enough on the farm to shelter all not required for
nursing the sick. To what degree the family might take the usual
precautions, if left to themselves, or how efficacious might be
their scriptural methods, can never be known; since the authorities
take the matter in hand at the start.

Footnote 141:

The only house built at Scotch Cap before the present century was
built about 1740, by Capt. Benj. Greene. Until within a few years,
the cellar of that house remained and also the chimney. It was
called “the chimney lot.”

Had this illness occurred in the very heart of a crowded city,
greater alarm or more stringent measures could not have ensued.
There is a special meeting of Governor and Council at New Haven,
October 14, on receipt of the news that John Rogers is ill at
Mamacock with the smallpox, and that “on account of the size of the
family, upwards of twenty persons, and the great danger of many
persons going thither and other managements” (doubtless referring to
scriptural methods of restoration and precaution) “there is great
liability of the spread of the infection in that neighborhood.” It
is enacted that “effectual care be taken to prevent any intercourse
between members of the family and other persons, also that three or
four persons be impressed to care for the sick.”

There are a number of meetings of the Governor and Council over this
matter (for full accounts of which see the published records of the
General Court of Connecticut). Were it not for the court records,
coming generations would be at loss to know whether the members of
the family themselves, also John Bolles, John Waterhouse, John
Culver and their wives, and others of the Rogerenes held firmly to
their principles in this crisis, or whether they stood willingly and
fearfully aloof, not daring to put their faith and theory to so
dangerous and unpopular a test. Fortunately for Rogerene history,
the testimony furnished by records of the special sittings of the
Governor and Council on this occasion, fully establishes not only
the fidelity of the Rogerenes to New Testament teachings, but also
their attachment and loyalty to their leader.

Three days after the official order that every relative and friend
be banished from his bedside, and so with no one near him but the
immunes pressed into the service, John Rogers yields up his life
unto Him whom he has faithfully striven to obey, fearing not what
man or any earthly chance might do to him. Thus dies John, the
beloved and trusted son of James Rogers, and the last of that
family.

John Rogers departed this life October 17th, the anniversary day of
his marriage to Elizabeth Griswold. She cannot fail to note that
fact, when the news reaches her. She is less than woman if, in the
hour of that discovery, she does not go aside to weep.

The day after this death, at another special meeting of Governor and
Council, it is enacted that “constant watch be kept about the house,
to seize and imprison all persons who may attempt to hold any
intercourse with the quarantined family.” Little do those who have
been forced to take charge at Mamacock and to punish all friendly
“intruders about the premises” appreciate the deep sorrow and
sympathy of these long-time neighbors and friends, who desire to
hear the particulars, to show respect for the departed and to render
aid to the family. Rudely rebuked, no doubt, are the most reasonable
efforts on the part of these friends, to prove their love and
fellowship in grief, although as yet no one else has the contagion
and all thoughts are centred on this one great bereavement.

When shortly Bathsheba, wife of John Rogers (now 2d) and their
eldest son, John, are stricken, the dark shadows deepen over
Mamacock, and friends of the family would fain show some sign of
fearless fidelity, not only to those afflicted, but to the teachings
of the New Testament and the Old, in regard to the power and good
will of God to hold even the direst pestilence in His hand. Much of
the endeavor on the part of these friends appears to be to provide
the family with such necessaries for their comfort as have not yet
been supplied by the authorities.

John Waterhouse and John Culver come over from Groton to secure news
regarding the sick and bring something likely to be needed in the
quarantine. The slightest attempt at such friendly aid excites
indignation and terror on the part of the authorities.

At one of the special meetings of Governor and Council (October 31)

“action is taken regarding the fact that several of the followers
of John Rogers have, contrary to express orders to the contrary,
presumed to go into the company of some that live in the Rogers
house, and further express orders are issued to these obdurate
persons, particularly John Culver and wife, John Waterhouse and
wife of Groton, Josiah Gates and wife of Colchester and John
Bolles and wife.”

That friends of the family have endeavored to supply them with
necessaries, on account of very tardy red tape regarding such
provision by the authorities, is strongly suggested by an order
accompanying the above, commencing: “Whereas it appears that a
meeting of the selectmen is necessary in order to their taking care
of the sick family,” it is hereby ordered “that notice shall be
given the selectmen to meet and consider what is fit to be done for
such as are confined in said families.” Yet it is not until the next
special meeting, over three weeks later (November 24), that it is
ordered that two suitable persons shall be constantly in attendance
“to lodge at the house of Jonas Hamilton or John Bolles” and “by
relieving each other, watch and ward night and day to understand the
state of the sick there and give information of what is needed.”
After this order, although other meetings are held by the Governor
and Council on the same account, there is no mention of any further
endeavors on the part of friends of the family to hold communication
with them.

Two more of the family die of the disease, Bathsheba, wife of John
Rogers, 2d, and John, their son. When all is over, John Rogers, 2d,
is called upon to pay the expenses of official nurses, guards,
provisions and medicines, a large bill, on which he is allowed no
reduction.

John Rogers having died intestate, his son John is appointed
administrator. The only heirs allowed by the court are the widow,
John Rogers, 2d, and Elizabeth Prentice, “only son” and “only
daughter,” among whom the estate is divided by due course of law.
When this form is ended, John Rogers, 2d, ignoring the fact that he,
as only son under the law, has “a double portion,” and Gershom and
Mary, the two children by Mary, are awarded nothing of this estate,
pays to each of these a liberal sum out of his own portion for
“share in” their “father’s estate” (as is still to be seen on the
town records). Well may Mary, if living, forgive this honorable man
for some things that displeased her in the past. He claims her
children as his father’s before the world; he claims them as brother
and sister of his own. He afterwards buys of them land at Mamacock,
which was given them by their father, Gershom’s land “having a house
thereon.”

To the ecclesiastic view, John Rogers has fallen, as to that view he
has lived, a fanatic, striving for such an impracticable end as to
resurrect the first Christian era into the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. But the friends and followers of this leader
are sure that a Christian hero has passed from their midst, in no
ignoble way.

Here was a man who, had he chosen to fight worldly battles, in forum
or in field, might well have made a mark that all men had
acknowledged; but who, for the truth that is in the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, elected to lead through life a forlorn hope, humanly
speaking, as of one against a thousand or a score against a host. It
matters not that he but voiced the sentiments of a large number of
his own day (and a multitude of ours); it is a silent minority, that
dare not even to applaud a man who speaks their views, while the
popular leadership and power are on the other side.

Mamacock farm has been much enlarged since, by that name; it was the
old Blinman farm, and as such given to Elizabeth Griswold; it has
taken in lands to the north, south and west (across the Norwich
road). In a southeast corner of its present (1721) boundaries, close
by the river bank, are three graves that mark the earthly loss to
family and friends of that fearless visit to Boston. The sentiments
of the Rogerenes who view those mounds are: “The Lord hath given and
the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” They
gather closer to fill this great vacancy in their ranks and press on
under the same banner. If John Rogers, 2d, be not the next
leader-in-chief (as perchance he is) that banner will never falter
in his hands. John Waterhouse, as a preacher of rare eloquence and
power, wears the mantle well. John Bolles is in the prime of life,
being but forty-four years of age at the time of the death of his
chief. He will labor in this cause for many a year to come, with
ready voice and pen. Under his training and that of his wife Sarah,
a bevy of bright and energetic boys are growing up strong in the
faith, to join hands with the sons of John Rogers, 2d. Young Joseph
Bolles is soon to come to the front. Shortly another elder and
preacher rises, in the person of Andrew Davis. Here are enough to
hold the present band together and labor for its enlargement. The
authorities cannot take much encouragement, after the fall of the
great leader. He has builded for time to come.

In 1722 is passed an act directing dissenters to qualify under the
law of 1708, and such persons as neglect the public worship of God
in some lawful congregation, and form themselves into separate
companies in private houses, are to forfeit the sum of 40_s._ A fine
of £10 and a whipping to any person not a minister who shall dare to
administer the sacraments.

However this may be aimed at the Rogerenes, it evidently does not
reach them. If the authorities should endeavor to strictly enforce
this law in New London, there would undoubtedly be court records in
plenty regarding countermoves, and an overflowing prison, as will be
seen during a later attempt (1764-6) to enforce arbitrary laws of
this kind. For more than forty years previous to 1722 the Rogerenes
have ignored similar laws, and will continue the same course to the
end.

CHAPTER XI.
YEARS OF TRUCE.

For some years after the death of John Rogers, no serious
interference with the customs of the Rogerenes is recorded. The
countermoves directly preceding that death should, by all
precedents, be sufficient to secure them from molestation for a
considerable time to come.

September, 1724, occurs the sudden death of Governor Saltonstall, by
apoplexy. His family continue to reside in New London and to form an
important part of the leading membership of the Congregational
church.

Under the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall the half-way covenant was in
full force,[142] and under his administration as governor this
policy was applied to the colony at large.

Footnote 142:

“Although the practice of it” (half-way covenant) “did not begin
here” (New London) “until Mr. Saltonstall’s pastorate, yet it was
in the air, was practiced by most of the leading churches in the
Colony. But when the pastorate of Mr. Saltonstall began, we find
that the new way had gained a foothold. It was known as the
Presbyterian way. It was the system of all national churches, ...
all persons of good moral character living within the parochial
bounds were to have, as in England and Scotland, the privilege of
baptism for their children and access to the Lord’s table. (Ecc.
His. of Conn., pp. 28, 29.) It is to be understood that this
refers to persons who laid no claims to regenerate character.
There was no awakening in this church” (New London Congregational)
“nor indeed in N. Eng. worth mentioning before 1748—effect on this
church may be seen in the fact that during the first half century
of its existence not over 200 members were received and a full
century of its life passed without a religious awakening.”—_From
History of First Congregational Church of New London, by Rev. Mr.
Blake._

For forty years after the death of Governor Saltonstall, nothing
regarding the Rogerenes appears on the records of either of the
three courts. Yet there is abundant evidence that these people are
steadfastly continuing in the faith and practices of their sect,
holding their own meetings, in New London, Groton and elsewhere,
preaching their purely scriptural doctrines, and publishing books in
defense of their principles. Although not presented before the
County Court in this period, they are (as shown by the writings of
John Rogers, 2d, and John Bolles) frequently disturbed by the town
magistrates, who deal with them “at their own discretion.” That
entrance into the meeting-house was a last resort is shown by its
extreme infrequency as compared with the more or less constant and
severe aggravations to which they are subjected. The only evidence
of virulent measures in this period is the pitiless scourging
inflicted by Norwich authorities (1725) upon the Sunday party on
their way to Lebanon. (See Part I., Chapter I.) The officers and
others concerned in this proceeding appear to have been members of
the Norwich church, from which, as has been seen, were wont to issue
pursuers of the Rogerenes.[143]

Footnote 143:

This may account for the traditions credited by Miss Caulkins of
some sort of entrance into that church. (“History of Norwich.”) It
is possible that attacks from this church were only to be held in
check by some significant warning; but that there was any
disturbance of meeting seems disproven by absence of any court
record to that effect. The law regarding disturbance of meeting is
very explicit, calling for presentation before the County Court.

If any person shall come to any church or congregation, either
established or allowed by the laws of this colony, and disquiet
and disturb the same, such person or persons upon proof thereof
before any assistant or justice of the peace, by two sufficient
witnesses, shall be bound in £50 for appearance at next County
Court, and in default of same to be committed to prison to remain
until sitting of said court, and upon conviction of said offence
shall suffer the penalty of £20.

The following from the “Hempstead Diary” shows an imprisonment of
one or more Rogerenes at this period, and, in consequence, a
Rogerene attendance in Congregational church. The speaking appears
to have been so timid as not to disturb the services.

1725. _Sunday, Oct. 31._—Walter and John Waterus spake aloud att
ye Same Instant and said you Blaspheme the name of Christ or to
that effect. Jno. Rogers and Bolles and his wife sd Nothing till
meeting was over and yn complained much of the french barber
striking over one of their crew at the prison and brot the stick
wch he sd he Struck him with.

The offenses for which the Rogerenes are most liable to magisterial
punishment at this time appear to be travelling upon Sunday, when
they have occasion to attend a distant meeting, and performing
sufficient observable labor upon that day to assure their opponents
that they continue to deny its sanctity; although they take a
suitable portion of it for religious services. From them are
regularly collected fines for not training. These fines being
demanded by Cæsar (the purely civil government) are probably paid
without protest.[144] The church rates they never pay, no matter how
many fold more than the amount due is collected by execution on
their property, and still, as heretofore, they never appeal to the
court on account of the surplus retained.

Footnote 144:

No proof of refusal to pay these fines appears until a much later
date.

A considerable number of Rogerenes are located in the northeastern
part of Groton, among whom John Waterhouse and John Culver are
leaders. This is a sparsely populated district, where the
nonconformists are less exposed to such molestation and extortions
as assail those of New London. These Groton Rogerenes have Baptists
for their nearest neighbors, a sect agreeing with them in certain
particulars, but equally with the ruling order holding to the
observance of a “holy Sabbath.” It is certain that the Groton
Rogerenes have, sooner or later, some grievance against these
Baptists, evidently in connection with the question of Sunday
sanctity.

In 1728, John Bolles issues his “Application to the General Court of
Connecticut,” “in all the honor and submissive obedience that God
requires me to show to you,”—in which he states that he discovers in
the “Confession of Faith” which this court has established,
“principles that seem not to be proven by the Scriptures there
quoted,” and that he has drawn up some objections thereto which he
desires to be considered and “reply to be returned,” also that he
has “taken a journey for no other end but to deliver these
objections to one of the elders in each county in the colony.” As he
afterwards expresses it, “they disregarded my request.” In this
pamphlet he mentions various instances of cruel persecution to which
he and his friends have been subjected, and ends with these words:—

But we, on our parts, have had the witness of a good conscience
towards God in all our sufferings and loss of all these things,
and do make it our care to live inoffensively towards all men,
except in the case of Daniel, Chap. 6, Verse 5.[145] And whether
this be not oppressing and afflicting them that have no power to
help themselves for conscience’s sake,[146] let God be judge. Pray
peruse what is above written, and let it have a due sense upon
your minds; and so act and do in all the particulars above
mentioned, as you may have confidence and boldness to hold up your
heads before the great and terrible and righteous judge of all the
earth, when He shall come with his mighty angels in flaming fire,
taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Footnote 145:

Then said these men; We shall not find any occasion against this
Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his
God.—_Daniel 6, 5._

Footnote 146:

Viz.: by their principles of non-resistance.

That the religious standard of some of the principal members of the
Congregational church has not advanced since the time of Governor
Saltonstall is indicated by the following, from the “Hempstead
Diary”:—

1734. _Sunday, Sept. 29._ The late Gov. Saltonstall’s Pew stove
down the Door and 2 Pannels, it seems to be the effects of a
Contention between the two Brothers wives which of ye females
shall have the upper hand.[147]

Footnote 147:

This refers to the pew built for the Governor near the pulpit.
Miss Caulkins (“History New London”) mentions a similar contention
between prominent members of this church, under a somewhat earlier
date, in which the case was carried to court for final decision.

Two of the three sons of Governor Saltonstall, Nathaniel and
Gurdon, remained in New London. Rosewell, the eldest, settled in
Blanford and died in 1738. Of him Mr. Hempstead says in his
Diary:—“he was an Incomparable, well Disposed Gentleman, a good
Christian exaplary in his Living orderly and good in every
Relation.

Gurdon, 2d, was a leading man in New London and held numerous
important offices. Mr. Hempstead calls him “Col. Saltonstall” as
early as 1740. He lived in the Saltonstall homestead and
marshalled his fourteen children in the family procession for
church every Sunday, after the example of his father, the
governor. (“History of New London.”) His eldest child, Gurdon, 3d,
was born in 1734, and his second, Dudley, in 1736.

It is not surprising that an aristocracy so autocratic as to contend
with near relatives for supremacy of this kind should be bitterly
antagonistic to the Rogerenes, who not only shun worldly position
for themselves but refuse to be subject to its rule in all matters
pertaining to the Christian religion. Youth of the Congregational
church, who are to grow up under influences of the above
description, are destined, thirty years from this date, to be church
members themselves and to take part with their elders, as advocates
of a “holy Sabbath,” in a movement against the Rogerenes which is to
result in the great countermove of 1764-66, and the retaliatory
measures adopted in that contest.

We find in the “Hempstead Diary”:—“July 17, 1743, Hannah Plumb,[148]
a young woman, was baptized in ye river at ye town beach by Samuel
son of John Rogers.” This not only shows Samuel Rogers (son of John,
2d) to be a leading Rogerene, but is one of the proofs that some of
the Plumb family, the elder members of which are prominent in the
town and Congregational church, are of Rogerene persuasion; also
that the Rogerenes have got beyond the Mill Cove for baptisms.

Footnote 148:

It is shown by Hempstead’s Diary that Hannah Plumb was daughter of
John Plumb and baptized, as an infant, in the Congregational
church, December, 1723, also that her father was a nephew of Mr.
Hempstead, and her mother a daughter of Mr. Peter Harris. A son of
her uncle, Peter Plumb, married a granddaughter of John Bolles.

About 1735, John Culver and wife, with their sons and families,
together with other Rogerenes of Groton, emigrated to New Jersey,
where they founded a Rogerene settlement. (The cause of this removal
is unknown. The theory that it was to escape persecution is
weakened, not only by proof that the Culvers had proven themselves
of heroic mould in this struggle, but by the fact that there was a
cessation of virulent persecution at this time.) In the course of a
few years, they are found, with quite a following, at Waretown[149]
(in the southern part of what is now Ocean County), holding their
meetings in a schoolhouse. A man by the name of Weair, the founder
of Waretown, is one of their Society; an enterprising business man,
who is described as a most worthy Christian.[150]

Footnote 149:

They first settled in Morris County, N.J.—Schooley’s Mountain—but
soon moved south to above location. About eleven years later, they
seem to have returned to Schooley’s Mountain. In the latter part
of the eighteenth century, many of these New Jersey Rogerenes are
said to have removed to the “red stone country,” supposed to be
Virginia. Most of them had names indicative of Groton origin, as
Waterhouse, Mann, Lamb, etc., showing that other Groton people
either accompanied the Culvers to New Jersey or joined them there.
It would be interesting to know more of the New Jersey Rogerenes
than has been discovered. Very naturally, various fabrications
regarding the New London Rogerenes have become attached to them
also, simply because they were of the same sect.

Footnote 150:

Upon his gravestone is inscribed:—“In memory of Abraham Weair.
Died March 24, 1768, aged 85 years. Whose innocent life adorned
true light.”

The location of this little Rogerene community is about one hundred
and forty miles from Ephrata, Pa., where is a Society of Dunkers,
among whom are certain brethren who dwell apart from the secular
portion of the community, in a cloister. This Society observe the
seventh day as a Sabbath, and hold closely to New Testament teaching
and example, not discarding healing by faith and prayer and the
anointing with oil. The brethren of the cloister appear to believe
in direct enlightenment being accorded to such as lead devout lives.
They have acquired the name and fame of “holy men.” John Culver has
visited these brethren of the cloister, and a mutual friendship and
interest have resulted.

In 1744, a number of these Ephrata brethren, being on a pilgrimage
in the vicinity of the New Jersey Rogerenes, pay them a visit. The
reputation of these “holy men,” in regard to healing by prayer, and
also the fidelity of the Rogerenes to this scriptural mode, is shown
by the fact, recorded by the Pilgrims, that the New Jersey Rogerenes
brought their sick to them, in the hope that they might be restored
to health.[151]

Footnote 151:

The following brief but explicit counsel to his followers by John
Rogers, Sr., contained in one of his books, under the heading here
given, is all that has been found in Rogerene writings regarding
the doctrine of divine healing:—

CONCERNING GOD’S MINISTRATION BY SICKNESS.

In Time of Sickness, Ake or Pain, we are to examine our own
Hearts, to see and find out the cause of God’s Chastisement, and
to look up to Him who wounds, and whose Hands alone make whole,
who is the same Yesterday, Today and forever; and to attend the
Apostle Jame’s Direction. James 5, 13 etc. If any Man among you be
afflicted, let him pray; is any merry, let him sing Psalms; is any
sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let
them pray over him, anointing him with Oyl in the Name of the
Lord; and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up; and if he have committed Sins, they shall be
forgiven him. Confess your Faults one to another, and pray one for
another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a
Righteous Man availeth much.—J. R.

The Culvers urge the Pilgrims to visit the Rogerenes of New London,
and with such effect that the brethren embark for Connecticut. They
land at Blackpoint, where they are received by a Rogerene of that
vicinity, who later escorts them to Bolles Hill, where they make
their headquarters at the house of John Bolles. They speak, in their
journal, of the Rogerenes as leading “a quiet life apart,” in the
country, and state that they had with them a “most peaceful visit.”
From the country they are escorted into the town, where they are
entertained at the house of Ebenezer Bolles (son of John), whom they
describe in their journal as “a blessed virtuous man.” They advise
him not to marry, not knowing that he is engaged to Mary, the
seventeen-year-old daughter of John Rogers, 2d, and has made his
house ready for the bride who is very shortly to occupy it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the town, by description of the
tourists, is in a state of agitation and excitement, on account of
rumors of war with Spain and the religious differences and public
disputes occasioned by the presence and preaching of the New Light
evangelists, the citizens vie with the Rogerenes in kindly and
interested attentions to the strangers, who speak highly of the
hospitality of the people and describe New London as “a fruitful
garden of God.” When the day for their departure arrives, the
Rogerenes provide passage for them to New York, to which “gifts” of
some kind are added, by reason of which the Pilgrims state that they
took away with them more than they brought. There is mention of
these strangers in the “Hempstead Diary,” under date of October 10,
1744, where they are described as men with beards eight or nine
inches long, without hats and dressed in white. By their own
description, a crowd followed them in New London wherever they went.

No mention is made by the Pilgrims of any unpleasantness between the
Rogerenes and their neighbors, unless the “quiet life apart” of the
former can be thus construed. That the Rogerenes sympathize with the
New Lights to a considerable degree is more than probable; yet they
seem to go their own way, undisturbed and unexcited by the
surrounding ferment.[152]

Footnote 152:

The “History of the German Sectaries” (Philadelphia, 1899) by
Julius F. Sachse, gives an account of this New London visit
derived from the Journal of the Pilgrims. By that history, it will
be seen that these Ephrata brethren were men of learning, and had
at the Cloister a printing-press, from which issued numerous
publications, in both German and English type. Products of this
press are among the rarest specimens of Americana.

New ecclesiastical laws have recently been enacted, largely on
account of the advent of the New Lights, and old laws are to be more
strictly enforced. The rulers are tightening the reins, and the
Rogerenes with other nonconformists are likely to receive a cut of
the lash. In 1745, Joshua Hempstead writes in his Diary:—

_Sunday, June 16._—John Rogers and Bolles and Waterus and Adrw
Daviss and about 20 more of their Gang, came Down into Town with a
cart and oxen and were taken up by the officers and Committed to
Prison, also 4 Women of their Company Came to ye Meetinghouse and
began to preach and were taken away to Prison also.

No clew is given to the cause of this move. A phalanx of Rogerenes
passing, on Sunday, slowly along the principal street of the town in
a cart drawn by oxen, each one of these non-combatants calmly and
cheerfully prepared to pay for their spectacular move by seizure,
imprisonment and fines, is fully as comical as it is tragic. Though
some of the spectators are in a rage, others must be overcome with
laughter, while sympathizers too politic to laugh outright smile in
their sleeves. The after-appearance, at or in the neighborhood of
the meeting-house, of four Rogerene women, fluent in Gospel
“testimony” regarding the unchristian proceedings of the
“authority,” is a fitting climax to this non-resistant menace.

No wonder that for nine years to come the entries in the “Hempstead
Diary” will contain no hint of any collision with the Rogerenes.

The generally tolerant spirit towards the Rogerenes during the last
twenty years is largely to be attributed to the conciliatory
character of the Rev. Mr. Adams, who, although he may not have felt
himself in a position to oppose the autocratic policy of Governor
Saltonstall, appears never to have instigated any attack upon the
nonconformists or taken an observable part in any such move. Nor, on
the other hand, do we find indication of any hard feeling towards
this minister on the part of the Rogerenes.

Who, it may be asked, are the Rogerenes of this period? Foremost
among the leaders on the New London side are John Rogers, 2d, and
John Bolles. There is a considerable following of families and
individuals in the town and vicinity, in no way allied to these by
relationship. The region about Mamacock and districts farther north
have, within the century, become largely occupied by families from
Rhode Island, who, being of Quaker and Baptist sympathies, are well
fitted for affiliation with the Rogerenes. It is not unlikely that
many of them have been attracted hither by that sect. Among these
are descendants of some who, having been persecuted by the ruling
church of Massachusetts, had retreated to Rhode Island for security.
Such would be nothing loath to aid in the bold stand so well
instituted in Connecticut. There are Rogerenes in Groton, Montville,
Colchester, Lebanon and Saybrook.[153] How many more converts are at
this date “scattered throughout New England” none could tell so well
as John Bolles, who has travelled extensively over the country
selling Rogerene books and expounding Rogerene doctrines. But the
solid nucleus of this Society is in the neighborhood of Mamacock and
just north of there, where the John Rogers and John Bolles families
and their neighboring followers are as a phalanx. They are, in the
main, a people of broad acres and ample means, industrious and
energetic; their young women are sought in marriage by promising
youth of other denominations, and their young men, evidently with
full parental consent, improve opportunities to take wives from some
of the best families in New London of wholly different persuasions
from their own. James, son of John Rogers, 2d, a young Rogerene of
great business ability, marries a daughter of Mr. Joseph Harris, and
permits his wife to have her child baptized in the Congregational
church,[154] of which she is a member. Evidently, the New London
Rogerenes agree with St. Paul in this regard. 1 Cor. vii, 14. About
1740, Capt. Benjamin Greene, of Rhode Island—a younger brother of
Gov. William Greene—established a home farm near Mamacock, at the
point called “Scotch Cap.” He is not only a shipmaster but the owner
of several vessels and their cargoes. His brother, the governor, is
a frequent visitor at Scotch Cap. The wife of Captain Greene is of
the Angell family of Rhode Island. Delight, daughter of Capt.
Benjamin Greene, marries John, son of John Rogers, 2d. The Greenes
are of both Quaker and Baptist sympathies. Samuel Rogers, son of
John, 2d, marries a daughter of Stephen Gardner, from Rhode Island,
whose family are of Quaker origin. The other marriageable son of
this date weds a daughter of Mr. John Savol (or Saville), a
prominent member of the Congregational church, afterwards of
Norwich. One daughter of John Rogers, 2d, marries a son of John
Bolles; another marries a young man of Groton whose father is an
enterprising business man from Rhode Island; the other four
daughters marry sons of members of the Congregational church (New
London and elsewhere), of high standing and ample means.

Footnote 153:

Since John Rogers resided as a pastor on the Great Neck from 1675
to 1699 he had undoubtedly a following of that locality.

Footnote 154:

Her first child was baptized in the Congregational church, but the
other children do not appear on the Congregational church records,
by which it may be judged that she was brought over to her
husband’s views in this particular.

The sons of John Bolles have not all taken wives from among the
Rogerenes, but are less allied to those of Congregational
persuasion; outside of their own sect they have most favored Baptist
women. The second wife of John Rogers, 2d, appears not to have been
a Rogerene before marriage, and the same may be said of the second
wife of John Bolles. If such facts are true of the chief leaders and
their children, we may easily judge of the alliances of their
followers with persons of other denominations, in this comparatively
quiet interval.

The above particulars are important as showing the social status of
the leading New London Rogerenes in the middle of the eighteenth
century, and proving that, although holding strictly to their own
opinions and customs, they are not only accounted honorable and
esteemed members of the community, but are so liberally inclined as
to be in a large degree connected with liberal members of other
sects. John Rogers, 2d, has said: “I abhor the abusing of any
sect.”—_Answer to Peter Pratt._ It appears likely that he also
abhors the isolation of any sect, believing men and women can differ
on certain religious points, and yet be friends and even partners
for life.

This ready association of the New London Rogerenes with friendly
people of other denominations, is but one of many evidences that the
chief contention of these people has not been regarding minor
matters of church government and customs, nor even so much in regard
to baptism and hireling ministers; but that the great struggle, from
first to last, has been for religious liberty; in asserting which
liberty they must oppose those who institute, enforce or uphold laws
inimical to free expression of religious belief, or individual
liberty in the form of worship. Having the high ground of apostolic
doctrines and usages upon which to found a strong opposition to
ecclesiastical tyranny, they have fought the good fight upon that
sacred foundation.

The indications are strong that by the middle of the eighteenth
century there is not so much friction between the Rogerenes and the
authorities in regard to the gathering of rates for the
Congregational ministry, but that the old, exorbitant methods of
seizure have declined to less grievous proportions. Nor does there
appear to be serious interference with Sunday labor or travelling,
which argues that the Rogerenes are not driven, by close watch and
frequent arrests, to any extraordinary demonstrations of their
disapproval of governmental meddling in matters of conscience. It
appears to be the policy at this period to let them alone on these
sensitive points, in consequence of which toleration they do not
consider it necessary to make their differences of belief so
distinctly prominent. Evidently, a large measure of the freedom for
which this sect has contended is already accorded; certain
ecclesiastical laws, not yet erased from the statute book, are
becoming, in the neighborhood of the Rogerenes at least, of the dead
letter order, which is the case with many other laws still upon that
book.

In June, 1753, occurs the death of John Rogers, 2d, in his eightieth
year. He has made a long and heroic stand, since at the age of
seventeen years he joined his father in this contest. To him is
largely due the size and strength of a sect that has called for the
bravest of the brave—and found them.

Fifteen children gather at Mamacock, to follow the remains of this
honored and beloved father to the grave, eight sons and seven
daughters, of the average age of thirty-four years, the eldest (son)
being fifty-two and the youngest (son) fourteen years of age.
Besides these, with their families, and the widow in her prime, is
the large gathering of Bolleses and other friends and followers in
the locality, also those of Groton and doubtless many from other
places.

They lay the form of this patriarch beside his father, his wife
Bathsheba and the children gone before, in the ground he has set
apart, in the southeast corner of his farm, as a perpetual burial
place for his descendants, close by the beautiful river that washes
Mamacock. They mark his grave, like the others in this new ground,
by two rough stones, from nature’s wealth of granite in this
locality, whose only tracery shall be the lichen’s mossy green or
tender mould.[155]

Footnote 155:

The early graves still discernible in this old family
burying-ground are marked by natural, uninscribed stones, which
was the ordinary mode before gravestones came into common use in
New England. In family burying-places, on farms or in
out-of-the-way places, the lack of inscriptions continued to a
comparatively late period. Many such old family burying-places
have been long obliterated. The preservation of this one is
probably due to its being secured by deed. (See New London Record,
November 13, 1751.) It is said that, despite the lack of
inscriptions, descendants in the earlier part of the nineteenth
century could tell who was buried in each of the old graves. The
railroad has cut off a portion of this burial ground, which
originally extended to the verge of the river. Tradition states
that some of the graves on the river bank were washed away at the
time of the great September gale (1813).

John Rogers, 2d, was a man of remarkable thrift and enterprise as
well as of high moral and religious character.[156] His inventory is
the largest of his time in New London and vicinity, and double that
of many accounted rich, consisting mainly of a number of valuable
farms on both sides of the Norwich road, including the enlarged
Mamacock farm, the central part of which (Mamacock proper), his home
farm, is shown by the inventory to be under a high state of
cultivation and richly stocked with horses, cattle and sheep. His
children had received liberal gifts from him in his lifetime.

Footnote 156:

There are numerous allusions to John Rogers, 2d, in the “Hempstead
Diary,” but a number of references to “John Rogers,” which in the
published Diary are credited to John, 2d, refer to his cousin,
Capt. John Rogers, of Great Neck vicinity, as does the statement
under October 4, 1735, that John Rogers “girdled the apple trees”
on the “Crossman lot.” This “Crossman lot,” on the Great Neck, by
“Lower Mamacock,” was in litigation between Capt. John Rogers and
Mr. Hempstead, for some time, and was finally accorded to Mr.
Hempstead. “Lower Mamacock” by “lower Alewife Cove,” is easily
confounded with “Upper Mamacock,” by “upper Alewife Cove,”
although they are six or seven miles apart.

Four of the eight sons of John Rogers, 2d, are now in the prime of
life, and not only landed proprietors but men of excellent business
ability. John, the youngest of the four, now in his thirtieth year,
is appointed administrator of his father’s estate and guardian of
his two minor brothers. James, the eldest, is a very enterprising
business man. That his coopering establishment is a large plant is
shown by the fact that he is, immediately after the death of his
father, the richest man in New London, his estate being nearly equal
to that left by his father.[157] The preamble of his will proved in
1754, shows him to have been a Christian of no ordinary stamp. Thus
soon, after the death of John Rogers, 2d, this worthy and capable
son, who must have been a man of large influence in the Society, is
removed. For some time previous to his death, he occupied, as a home
farm, the southern third of the enlarged Mamacock[158]—which fell to
him later by his father’s will—upon which was a “mansion house” said
to have been built of materials brought from Europe. His brother
Samuel has inherited the northern third of the enlarged Mamacock,
upon which he resided for some time previous to the death of his
father. His brother John has inherited the central part, or Mamacock
proper, which his father reserved for his own use.

Footnote 157:

This coopering establishment was located on Main Street, by the
Mill Cove, on land which had been given him by his father in 1725
(New London Record); it bordered the Mill Cove and there was a
wharf belonging to it. Tradition has confounded this James with
his son James, the only son of the former who reached middle life.
James, Jr., was remembered by some of the older people of the
middle of the nineteenth century and familiarly called “Jimmy
Rogers.” He succeeded to the business of his father, by the Mill
Cove, and continued it on a still larger scale, packing beef of
his own preparation, in barrels of his own manufacture, and
shipping it to southern markets. He was a very successful business
man; but the piety conspicuous in the character of his father is
not ascribable to this James, who appears not to have made any
profession of the Christian faith. He was a young man at the time
of the persecution of the Society to which his father belonged,
which was instituted by the denomination of which his mother was a
member, and which resulted in the blood-curdling scenes attendant
upon the countermove of 1764-6. Such scenes enacted by professing
Christians, in vengeful punishment of other professing Christians,
were calculated to make anything but a religious impression upon a
youth of the strictly practical turn of mind that is ascribed to
this James.

Footnote 158:

The farm now (1904) occupied by Mr. Henry Benham is a portion of
what was the James Rogers farm. A southern portion of the latter
was sold by heirs of James, Jr., to the Lewis brothers. The farm
inherited by Samuel Rogers is now owned by Mr. Stephen Comstock.
Mamacock proper, left to John Rogers, 3d, is the farm now owned by
Mr. Fitzgerald, including Mamacock peninsula. Each of these farms
had, originally, pasture and woodland on the west side of the
Norwich road.

All of the above farms were valuable in old times, when clearings
were the exception, being rich lands carefully cultivated.

All the sons of John Rogers have been well educated; John has marked
literary talent; his brother Alexander appears to be a schoolmaster
of uncommon ability, although farmer and shoemaker as well.[159]

Footnote 159:

Specimens of his penmanship still extant, would compare favorably
with that of modern masters. These specimens are in possession of
Mr. Gilbert Rogers, of Quaker Hill.

The eight sons of John Bolles are among the wealthiest and most
enterprising citizens of New London; several own valuable lands in
the very heart of the town, as well as farms outside; they are
business men as well as farmers. Ebenezer Bolles is one of the
richest merchants in New London. The moral character of these sons
of John Rogers and John Bolles is without reproach. They are
professing Christians of the most evangelical stamp. Their sisters
are wives of thrifty and upright men.

These people and their adherents are not only a strong business
element in this community, but they are a strong moral and religious
element. If the present policy of non-enforcement in regard to this
sect of the ecclesiastical laws which they are bound to resist
should be continued, there is every reason to expect that in another
generation they will mingle with the rest of the community in so
friendly a manner as to be willing to compromise regarding such
minor differences as the observance or non-observance of days.

In 1754, John Bolles issued in pamphlet form “A Message to the
General Court in Boston,” in behalf of the principles of religious
liberty. In a volume in which this pamphlet was republished are two
other publications of this author, one of which (apparently written
about this time) is the tract entitled “True Liberty of Conscience
is in Bondage to no Flesh.” In this tract, among accounts of
persecution inflicted on the Rogerenes, is the following (also noted
in Part I.):—

“To my knowledge was taken from a man, only for the cost of a
justice’s court and court charge for whipping him for breach of
Sabbath (so called) a mare worth a hundred pounds, and nothing
returned; and this is known by us yet living, to have been the
general practice in Connecticut.”

The “by us yet living” and “to have been” indicate that it was at a
time considerably previous to this writing that such great cruelty
and extortions were in vogue. Yet it also shows how easily, with no
such publicity as would be incurred by presentation before the
County Court, great persecutions could be carried on by town
magistracy, a possibility always existing under the ecclesiastical
laws relative to Sunday observances.

John Bolles took his “Message to the General Court” to Boston for
presentation, in 1754, making the journey of two hundred miles on
horseback, in his seventy-seventh year. (See Part I., Chap. VII.)

In the previous year—October, 1753—close following the death of John
Rogers, 2d, had occurred the death of Rev. Eliphalet Adams, after a
pastorate of over forty years in New London. It has been seen that
since the death of Governor Saltonstall no virulent persecution of
the Rogerenes has occurred, and that the character and policy of Mr.
Adams have been favorable to compromise and conciliation. But very
soon after the death of Mr. Adams there appear signs of a grievance
on the part of the Rogerenes of a character to call forth one of
their old-time warnings. Proof of this appears in the “Hempstead
Diary”:—

_March 17, 1754._ John Waterhouse of Groton and John Bolles and
his sons and a company of Rogerenes came to meeting late in the
forenoon service, and tarried and held their meeting after our
meeting was over, and left off without any disorder before our
afternoon meeting began.

It is thirty-three years since Mr. Hempstead has had occasion to
note such a noon meeting on the part of the Rogerenes. By what
official move this warning has been induced does not appear.
Evidently no violence was offered the Rogerenes. This meeting will
be a sufficient check for some time upon whatever attempts are on
foot to disturb them.

Two years later, J. Hempstead writes in his Diary: “1756, May 30.
John Waterhouse and a company came to our meeting.”

There is evidently some call for another warning. The Congregational
pulpit is, at this date, filled with temporary supply.

In this evident crisis, it is probable that none await the action of
the Congregational church in their choice of a minister with more
interest than do the Rogerenes. Upon the views and temper of Mr.
Adam’s successor will largely depend the continuance or
discontinuance of the generally pacific attitude on both sides,
which has continued for so many years. In the Congregational church
membership are town officials as well as those in still more
influential positions.

CHAPTER XII.
THE GRAND COUNTERMOVE (1764-1766).

It is not until 1757 that a new minister is installed over the
Congregational church, in the person of Mr. Mather Byles, Jr., a
talented and very resolute young man, twenty-three years of
age.[160]

Footnote 160:

The liberal salary, for those times, accorded this very young man
was £100 per annum and a gratuity of £240 every four years. Yet we
soon find him complaining of the insufficiency of his salary.

This youth is of such character and persuasion as to resemble, in
this particular community, a firebrand in the neighborhood of a
quantity of gunpowder. (After the gunpowder has exploded and Mr.
Byles determines to remain no longer in this vicinity, in taking
leave of the Congregational church he says: “If I have not the
Sabbath, what have I? ’Tis the sweetest enjoyment of my whole
life.”)

This young man, whose “sweetest enjoyment” is the Puritan Sabbath so
reprobated by the Rogerenes, naturally looks over the field to see
how he can best distinguish himself as a zealous minister of the
ruling order. He observes a large portion of this community taking
sufficient pains to demonstrate to all beholders that they are
pledged to follow no laws or customs, regarding religious affairs,
other than those instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and His
inspired apostles, and that they are particularly called to bear
witness against that so-called “holy day” first instituted by the
emperor Constantine, which has, in an extreme form, been forced upon
the people of New England as a necessary adjunct to the worship of
God.

This zealous young minister appears to consider it his plain duty to
stem this awful tide of anarchy as best he may, lest it become a
torrent in New England that no man can stay. Thus he may distinguish
himself in a pulpit once occupied by the famous Governor Saltonstall
and succeed where even that dignitary failed. He will endeavor to
bring such new odium and wrath upon this obstinate sect as shall
effectually annihilate their Society.

Among the first efforts of Mr. Byles are sermons regarding the
sanctity of the Sabbath, accompanied by other attempts to arouse his
own people and the rest of the community (outside the Rogerene
Society) to the duty and necessity of putting a stop to any
desecration whatever of the “sacred” day.[161]

Footnote 161:

After the terrible scenes which have been brought about by his
policy, we find him, even in taking leave of the Congregational
church, complaining that the laws against the Rogerenes are “not
enforced.” If in the day of his disaster he is making such
complaint, what must have been his urgency at the time of his
confident entry upon this scene?

The Rogerenes soon find themselves not only preached to and against,
but seriously meddled with by the town authorities in ways for a
long time neglected. It is now again as in the days of John Rogers,
when he stated that “the priests stirred up the people and the mob”
against his Society.

The Rogerene countermove is almost unknown to this generation of
rulers; as for traditions concerning it, or the mild warnings of
1745 and 1754, perchance certain officials would be nothing loath to
see if they could not, by the trial of a more vigorous policy,
succeed better than did their predecessors in such contests, nor
would such officials be likely to anticipate lack of general public
sympathy in such an effort. It is as important to the Baptist church
as to the Congregational that Sunday should be accounted a sacred
day; let it be accounted otherwise, where would be attendants on
“divine worship”? Surely the young people would go to places of
amusement or of mischief, rather than to meeting-houses. The object
lesson presented by these upright and deeply religious Rogerenes,
whose youth are among the most exemplary and godly in the land, is
naturally lost upon a people who cannot trust the Lord himself to
furnish sufficient guidance for His church.

Joseph Bolles (born 1701), eldest son of John Bolles, is a leader
among the Rogerenes, standing shoulder to shoulder with his father
and John Waterhouse. He is a talented man, holding, like his father,
“the pen of a ready writer,” and is clerk of the Rogerene Society.
John Bolles being now over eighty years of age, this son largely
takes his place in the active work of the Society, on the New London
side. Yet the grand old patriarch, still vigorous in mind, sits
prominent in the councils, giving these active men and youth the
benefit of his experience, wisdom and piety, combined with an
enthusiasm as ardent as that of the youngest of them all.

The more the magistrates, inspired by Mr. Byles, re-enforce his
sermons by strict and unusual measures, the more do the Rogerenes,
following their olden policy in such emergencies, add to their
Sunday labors in the endeavor to fully convince their opponents that
they are not to be coerced in this matter.

Ere long, the Rogerenes are severely fined, and in lieu of payment
of such fines, which never have been voluntarily paid, are
imprisoned, sometimes twenty at a time, many of them being kept in
durance for a period of seven months. Their goods and the best of
their cattle and horses are seized, to be sold at auction and
nothing returned. Those having no such seizable property, are
imprisoned for non-payment of minister’s rates. In the midst of this
strenuous attack, Mr. Byles preaches an elaborate sermon, to be
published and circulated, in answer to what he calls the “Challenge”
of the Rogerenes, viz., their reiterated requests that the besieging
party will show them any Scriptural authority for the so-called
religious observance of the first day of the week, or for any
required “holy Sabbath” under the new dispensation. In this sermon
he calls the Rogerenes “blind, deluded, obstinate,” which terms are
quite as applicable to the church party, from the Rogerene point of
view. The onset continues, with added determination on the attacking
side and no show of weakening on that of the defense.

Since the pen is mightier than the sword, it may do good service in
such a time of peril as threatens the very existence of this devoted
sect. Joseph Bolles, sitting by his father’s side, sharpens his
quill to a fine point,[162] and the tremulous but earnest voice of
the faithful patriarch not only aids the theme, but speaks words of
comfort and of cheer; for is not this the cause of the Lord himself?

Footnote 162:

See extracts from “Reply to Mr. Byles,” by Joseph Bolles, in
_Appendix_.

There is another, John Rogers (3d), who, like his father and
grandfather before him, holds the pen of a ready writer. He was born
in 1724, three years after the death of his illustrious grandfather.
With the rapt attention, the retentive memory and the plastic mind
of youth, he has received from his father’s lips accounts of the
thrilling experiences of the past; as a young man, he has followed
the teachings and emulated the deeds of his people. He, too, will
sharpen a quill ere long.

[Particular attention is here called to the following reference to
Mr. Byles, in the “Reply of Joseph Bolles.” See _Appendix_ for full
connection. “It is this sort of ministers that preach to the General
Court to suppress or persecute them that walk by the apostle’s
doctrine, for not observing this Sabbath which he” (Byles) “says the
apostles ‘left to after discoveries.’” It is certain that the
Rogerenes are under no difficulty in discerning from whence emanates
the influence that has set this new persecution on foot and is
continuing it to a crisis.]

The first efforts at repression proving ineffectual, severer
measures are adopted by the attacking party. Yet there are several
years more of patient endurance and forbearance on the part of the
Rogerenes before they resolve to turn upon their foes the sole
effectual means of defense at their command in times like these.

Among legal weapons available to the church party are four
ecclesiastical laws, the strict application of which—as regards the
Rogerenes, at least—have fallen into disuse, viz.: the law against
Sunday labor, that against going from one’s house on Sunday except
to and from authorized meetings, the law against unauthorized
meetings and those holding or attending such meetings, and the law
by which any one not attending meetings of the ruling order or the
services of some authorized Society of which he is a member, in a
regular meeting-house on Sunday, can be fined for every such
absence.[163] (Besides these are the large fines for baptizing and
administering the Lord’s Supper on the part of unauthorized
persons.)

Footnote 163:

There are traditions among descendants of the Rogerenes to the
effect that one of the features of the persecution that called
forth the countermove of 1764-6 was molestation of the Rogerenes
for not attending regular (“lawful”) meetings. This tradition is
found in different families situated far apart. Mr. John R. Bolles
received such a statement from his mother (who was a daughter of
John Rogers, 3d). Since this history asserts nothing upon
tradition, this cannot be stated as a proven fact, although it
appears fully probable.

It is optional with the town magistrates to present persons guilty
of breaking any of the above laws before the next County Court or to
deal with such “at their own discretion,” a discretion which in a
number of instances has taken the form of lynch law, by giving the
offenders over to a mischievous mob. It is not the policy at this
time to present the Rogerenes before the County Court; not only
would such publicity be liable to create outside sympathy with the
Rogerenes, but the fines of this court for such offenses are limited
to an inconsiderable amount, expressed in shillings, while the
“discretion” of the town magistrates allows of serious fines,
expressed in pounds, as well as imprisonment, stocks and stripes.
The damaging effect of a friendly jury is also to be avoided. (But
one reference to the Rogerenes is to be found on the records of the
County Court during the more or less turbulent period between 1758
and 1766; this reference occurs in regard to the barring of the
doors of the New London prison by the prisoners, for which the
penalty is conspicuously slight.—See end of this Chapter.)

While this persecution, the most virulent that has ever been visited
upon the Rogerenes as a Society, is nearing a crisis, occurs the
death of Ebenezer Bolles, June 24, 1762, at the age of fifty-four,
through contact with “poisonous wood.”[164] An obituary notice, in
the next issue of the _Connecticut Gazette_, attests to the wealth,
integrity, hospitality and general worthiness of this New London
merchant, and also states that no physician or medicines were
allowed in his sickness,[165] he “belonging to the Society of
Rogerenes.”

Footnote 164:

There are said to be indications (J. S. Sachse) that memorial
services for Ebenezer Bolles, as entertainer of the Pilgrims in
1744, were held at the Ephrata Cloister. In a reference to his
death, on the records of the Cloister, is this invocation: “God
grant him a blessed resurrection!”

Footnote 165:

The ineffectiveness of medicines and applications to even
alleviate the symptoms of such poisoning, after the malady is
fully under way, is well known. Yet neither with nor without the
use of medical means would death be expected to ensue in such a
case. That there was an unsuspected complication in this instance,
leading to sudden death, seems probable. To persons living in the
country, as did the Rogerenes for the most part, an illness so
common as poisoning by ivy or by alder (apparently the latter in
this case) would not be regarded of a really dangerous character,
however distressing. There have been persons greatly bloated and
in great suffering by such poison, whose condition gave no serious
alarm and who recovered in the usual period.

The account of this death, as of that of John Rogers in 1721, is
important; since it affords proof, more than forty years after the
latter event, that this Society are as unswerving as ever in their
adherence to Scriptural methods. How much reason has John Bolles,
now in his 86th year, to discard this faith, even in the day of his
great bereavement? He has still twelve children in health and vigor,
between the ages of 60 and 20, eight of whom are destined to live to
the following ages: 94, 91, 85, 84, 83, 82, 78, 75, and the other
four beyond middle life. In the Rogers and other leading Rogerene
families there appears a like flourishing condition.

After more than five year’s continuance of aggravations instituted
and continued under the leadership of Mr. Byles, which have finally
reached a stage past endurance, the Rogerenes, on both sides of the
river, are gathering in council about a common campfire, to consider
the move that must be made, a countermove beside which the entrance
of John Rogers and his wheelbarrow into the meeting-house in 1694
shall pale to insignificance.[166] The plan concluded upon bears the
stamp of such veterans in the cause as John Bolles and John
Waterhouse, as well as of keen young wits besides. They will give
their enemies all the attendance upon meetings in “lawful
assemblies” on their part, that these enemies will be likely to
invite for some time to come; they will enter into those assemblies,
and, if necessary, there will they testify against this “holy
Sabbath,” for the non-observance of which they are again so bitterly
persecuted, and against such other features of the worship of their
enemies as are opposed to the teachings of the New Testament. So
long as the ecclesiastical laws which forced their sect into
existence are executed against them, so long will they enter into
those assemblies thus to testify. The unscriptural features against
which they will testify are easily set forth, and to these the
testimony shall be strictly confined, with no mention of themselves
or their wrongs. For whatever comes of this testimony, made in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ in accordance with His teachings, and
after the example of His apostles, they are prepared, even though it
be martyrdom. The first attempt shall be of a tacit nature; if that
avail as a warning, well and good; they will not disturb the
meetings unless compelled to such extremity.

Footnote 166:

Quakertown traditions regarding this period are no less thrilling
than those of New London side, and point to measures reaching even
into the wilds of Groton. Only by spies and officials in the
vicinity of the Groton Rogerenes, could they have been made to
share in the persecution. As before said, most of their neighbors
were Baptists. A historical account of the Baptist church of that
vicinity avers, apparently from tradition, that some of the Groton
Rogerenes came to that church in this period, bringing work,
interrupting the minister, etc. If the Groton Rogerenes were
seriously molested by these Baptists, it is not unlikely that they
instituted a countermove on that church for protection; but we
have been unable to discover any proof of the accuracy of the
statement regarding disturbance of the Baptist meetings, no record
regarding such disturbance having been found, or any contemporary
mention of the same. (See “Quakertown Chapter.”)

The fact that the Rogerene leaders of Groton were closely related
to some on the New London side, added to the fact that they were
church brethren, is sufficient to account for their joining with
the Quaker Hill people in the New London countermove. John
Waterhouse had a son of the same name living on Quaker Hill at
this time, on a farm that had been given to him by his father.

Mild indeed seems that first countermove (1685) when Capt. James
Rogers, by the commotion which his “testimony” called forth in the
meeting-house caused “some women to swound,” in comparison with that
of the Sunday, June 10, 1764, when a procession of Rogerenes from
Quaker Hill, re-enforced by friends from Groton, and including men,
women, and children, wends its solemn and portentous way into the
town, to enter into the midst of their persecutors.

Upon reaching the meeting-house, a number quietly enter, others
remain outside. The men who enter keep on their hats, in token of
dissent to the doctrines of this church. If some of these hats
chance to be broad-brimmed, so much the better. Wonderingly and
fearfully must the larger part of the congregation behold this
entrance and the quick-rising ire on the faces of such church
members as are most responsible for its occurrence. As for Mr.
Byles, his sensations may be imagined. He is in the midst of his
usual long prayer[167] containing copious information to the Creator
of the Universe, together with thanks and commendation to the same
Almighty Power, for many circumstances which have been brought about
by men in direct disobedience to His revealed Word; also petitions
for the forgiveness of the sins of this congregation, some of the
most serious of which—as persecution of their neighbors—they fully
intend to commit over and over again. In all probability some
portion of this prayer is aimed directly at the Rogerenes, in regard
to keeping “holy” the Sabbath day.

Footnote 167:

It was usually in the time of this unscriptural prayer that the
countermove took place.

Some commotion, caused by the entrance of the Rogerenes, compels Mr.
Byles to open his eyes before this long prayer is at an end. When he
does open them, he beholds these men with their hats on and these
women engaged in knitting, or some small sewing, in token that they,
too, are Rogerenes.

How long certain officials, and other church members, restrain
themselves is uncertain, even if they restrain themselves at all
from vengeance dire; but before the prayer is regularly ended, the
Rogerenes are fallen upon and driven out of the meeting-house with
great violence and fury, while those in waiting outside are attacked
with like rage, prominent church members and officials kicking and
beating unresisting men, women and children and driving them to
prison.

This treatment but deepens the determination of the Rogerenes. It is
evident that merely keeping on their hats and doing a little
knitting or sewing will not answer for an emergency like this. It
must be no fault of theirs if this effort in the Master’s cause
shall fail. They now enter the assembly of their persecutors to
declare, by word of mouth and with no lack of distinctness, against
the false doctrines of this persecuting church. This testimony will
they add to the silent mode of disapproval until these enemies
desist from their unendurable attempts at coercion, and from these
furious beatings, kickings, drivings, imprisonments, etc.

The party who renewed this almost forgotten contest, under the
leadership of Mr. Byles and his friends, with the intention of
making the position of the Rogerenes untenable, having brought
affairs to this crisis, are resolved to conquer. They proceed in the
line of violence which they have inaugurated, and in their rage even
demand of these devoted people that—to escape torture—they recant
their testimony against the doctrines and practices of this church.
Their testimony being of a purely Scriptural character, how can they
recant, even if they would, except by denying the truth of those
declarations from the New Testament which they have proclaimed in
the presence of their persecutors? The zeal of the Rogerenes is only
redoubled. It is now a question whether they will obey men rather
than God, for fear of what men may do to them. Yet, in their strict
fidelity to the teachings of Christ, they make no resistance to the
redoubled efforts of their enemies. Though their old men are
scourged to the verge of death and their women insulted; though
their brethren are suspended by the thumbs to be mercilessly whipped
on the bare skin; though warm tar is poured on their heads; though
men and women are driven through the streets more brutally than any
cattle, to be thrown into the river; though they are given over to
mobs of heartless children and youth to be whipped with thorny
sticks and otherwise abused, not the smallest or weakest of their
persecutors need fear the slightest violence in return.

With every attempt at a fresh testimony, the brutality of their
enemies is increased and the terms of imprisonment doubled, until
the prison is filled to suffocation and some of those within venture
to bar the doors against the incarceration of fresh victims. It
being impossible to further punish the offenders already in prison,
other than through presentation to the County Court, those who have
barred the door are presented at that court, probably on their own
confession, by reason of which there is one court record, relating
to this otherwise lawless contest of a year and a half in duration,
which is to the following effect:—

“Samuel Rogers, John Rogers, Alexander Rogers, Nathaniel Rogers”
(all sons of John Rogers, 2d) “and Joseph Bolles, of New London,
Samuel Smith of Groton” (grandson of Bathsheba) “Timothy
Waterhouse” (son of John of Groton) “bound over to the County
Court to answer complaint of Christopher Christophers” (son of
Chris. Chris.) “sheriff of New London, for that said persons, with
sundry other persons, on Sunday, Aug. 12th, 1764, did, in a very
high-handed, tumultuous manner, being in N. L. prison, bar up the
doors of said prison on the justice, so that said sheriff and
officers were denied and prevented admission into and possession
of said prison, and made a most tumultuous noise and uproar &c. as
pr. writ.”

The sentence of the court is a fine of 40_s._ each and costs of
prosecution, £2 each, which indicates more sympathy than severity on
the part of this court.

[Since the early and the latter scenes of this long contest are
shown to have been marked by unflinching endurance, unswerving
courage and strategic measures on the part of the defence, it may be
judged that during the entire period of unrelenting endeavors to
continue to a successful issue the policy instigated by Mr. Byles,
the assailants of the Rogerenes were encouraged by no signs of
weakening on the part of the sufferers, while much discouraged by
the disgrace attached to their church and the disapprobation of not
a few of its own members, on account of the unprecedentedly severe
policy that had brought on this countermove and the startlingly
barbarous punishments for the same.]

After nearly two year’s continuance of such heroic measures, under
leadership of Mr. Byles and his friends, the Rogerenes, while many
of their heads of families are in prison, institute a new kind of
tactics, striking more directly at the very root of the matter,
viz., at Mr. Byles. The plan is to have some of their people besiege
Mr. Byles, at every conceivable opportunity, with attempts to
converse with him in regard to the teachings of the New Testament,
and to reason with him concerning the cruelties practised upon the
Rogerenes. They are also to go to the meeting-house on Sunday and
sit directly in his sight, and they are to linger in the
neighborhood of his house or the meeting-house, where he may know of
their vicinity and expect them to walk with him and talk to him “of
the things of God,” whenever he ventures outside.

Victory is now near at hand. Mr. Byles is driven nearly frantic. His
tormentors are thrown into prison for declining to give bonds or to
pay fines for attempts to approach this gentleman and converse with
him. In this serio-comic crisis, parties of Rogerenes enter the
meeting-house on Sunday and sit where Mr. Byles cannot fail to
observe their grave, earnest and otherwise expressive faces, telling
volumes at a glance, of inexpressible sufferings and losses, endured
through tedious months and wasting years, of children left
fatherless and motherless at home or wandering the streets tearful
and hungry, and of many a bitter thing well known to Mr. Byles. But,
most eloquent of all to him and most impressive, is the fixed
determination in their faces to continue in his sight at every
opportunity. Even a cat may look at a king without fear of
consequences, and so do the Rogerenes look at Mr. Byles. Here is
something that has been left out of the law books.

Ere long, the able-bodied men and women not in prison may attend to
business and family duties, while a few old people, principally
women, go on Sunday to sit in the meeting-house, or stand outside
before and after meeting. Also on week days they sit or stand in the
vicinity of Mr. Byle’s house, until he will not venture out, if but
one such person is near. Nor will he go to the church on Sunday,
even if there are but two or three Rogerene women outside, until
some official drives them away and escorts him to the meeting-house.
The bell is sometimes kept tolling a full hour, until it is time the
long service should be well under way, before the minister makes his
appearance; he has been waiting for some one to drive these women
away.

For the whole time—more than two months—that the men who have
attempted to converse with Mr. Byles are kept in prison, these
faithful women keep the watch on Mr. Byles. When the men are at
length released, they renew their endeavors to talk with Mr. Byles.
It is now not long before Mr. Byles has had more than enough
opportunity to distinguish himself in an endeavor to extinguish the
Rogerenes. He is determined not only to leave New London but to
desert the Congregational ministry and denomination, and lays all
the blame of his failure to conquer these people upon lack of
execution of the ecclesiastical laws!!![168] His determination is
sudden, so far as the knowledge of his parishioners is concerned,
and his exit speedy in the extreme. (For particulars regarding his
resignation, see extract from “Debate, etc.,” in _Appendix_.)

Footnote 168:

Mr. Byles, having precipitately left New London and the country to
receive Episcopal orders in England, his “forsaken congregation”
(Caulkins) criticised and ridiculed him mercilessly, even to
lampoons (see “History of New London”), among which was one called
“The Proselyte,” which was sung to the tune of “The Thief and the
Cordelier.” He afterwards became an Episcopal minister in Boston,
but in the time of the Revolution was a royalist and a refugee,
among those prohibited from returning to Massachusetts. He was
succeeded in the Congregational church at New London by Rev.
Ephraim Woodbridge, grandson of the first Congregational minister
of Groton, of the same name. Mr. Woodbridge was a most estimable
man. He allowed of no admission to church membership without
evidence of conversion, contrary to the practice so long in vogue
in New London previous to his ministry. It is a notable fact that
certain families belonging to the Congregational church before
this season of persecution, are afterwards found members of
another denomination. It is unlikely that the popularity of this
church was other than injured by the fame of this exploit, the
effect of which, as well as the new rule for admission, may help
to account for the fact that by 1776 there were but five men on
its roll of membership. It will be remembered that some members of
this church were allied to the Rogerenes, while others were
evidently liberal and friendly.

The Rogerenes may now rest on their laurels. With Mr. Byles out of
the way, we hear no more of harsh measures being employed against
this sect. They may now attend their own meetings upon Sunday
instead of those of their opponents, never neglecting, however, to
give sufficient evidence that this is to them a holiday and not a
“holy day.”

John Bolles lived to praise God that He had granted His servants
strength to continue faithful to the end and given them so signal a
victory. This devout and heroic Christian was called to his reward
in his ninetieth year, January 7, 1767.

In another decade, is heard the trumpet call of the Revolution. It
is more than probable that a people of such courage and love of
liberty have some difficulty at this time in keeping their
sentiments within scriptural limits, and still more difficulty in
holding back their youth from the fray. Not a few grandsons of John
Rogers, 2d, and John Bolles, as well as other Rogerene youth, break
away. One of them crosses the Delaware with Washington, and another
is in the body-guard of the great general. The young volunteers of
this blood and training fight bravely on land and sea. Some of them
die on the field and some in loathsome prison ships.[169] Outside of
the John Rogers descent, many are the descendants of James Rogers,
1st, that join the Continental army and navy. Yet, for the most
part, the Rogerene youth hold firmly to the doctrine of
non-resistance as set forth in the New Testament. Many of them are
among the first to note the inconsistency between the sentence in
the Declaration of Independence regarding the equal rights of all
men and the clause in the Constitution countenancing slavery. As for
the torch of religious liberty which this sect held aloft in the
darkness, through many a weary contest,—a few years more, and the
flame that it has helped to kindle leaps high, in the dim dawn of
that day whose sun shall yet flood the heavens.

Footnote 169:

Of John Bolles, 4th (on his mother’s side a grandson of Joseph
Bolles), who served in the Revolution on board armed vessels of
Connecticut, and died on board a prison ship of the enemy, it was
said, by one who knew him, that he was “a young man of
extraordinary intelligence, information and gallantry.”

[For further elucidation of the events set forth in this chapter,
there is presented in the _Appendix_ an extract from the pamphlet
published about 1759 by Joseph Bolles, describing some of the
opening events of this persecution under the leadership of Mr.
Byles, also several extracts from the pamphlet written by John
Rogers, 3d, giving particulars of the merciless punishments
inflicted upon those who took part in the countermove of 1764-66.
This pamphlet is entitled “A Looking Glass for the Presbyterians
of New London.” The limits of this chapter have allowed of very
brief presentation of those cruelties, expressed in general terms.
Still other extracts from the pamphlet by John Rogers, 3d, may be
found in the “History of New London”; but only a perusal of the
whole work could give an adequate idea of the barbarous cruelties
practised upon the Rogerenes in this contest, during the whole of
which not one of the victims was charged with returning a single
blow or making any resistance to the attacks of the lynching
parties. There is also presented in the _Appendix_, in connection
with this chapter, quotations from a pamphlet which appeared
shortly after the resignation of Mr. Byles, under the auspices of
the Congregational church, entitled _A Debate between Rev. Mr.
Byles and the Brethren_, which portion relates to Mr. Byle’s
determination to leave that church and ministry, and shows his
aversion to the Rogerenes who were his victors. It will be seen
that from the three above-mentioned sources has been drawn the
information contained in this chapter.]

CHAPTER XIII.
QUAKERTOWN.

In the new century, ecclesiastical persecutions are scarcely more
than a tradition, save to the aged men and women still living who
took part in their youth in the great countermove, the sufferings
attendant upon which are now, even to them, as a nightmare dream.
The laws that nerved to heroic protest a people resolved to obey no
dictation of man in regard to the worship of God lie dead upon the
statute book—although as yet not buried. The Rogerenes are taking
all needful rest on Sunday, the day set apart for their meetings.
Many of those on the New London side mingle as interested listeners
in the various orthodox congregations. They walk where they please
on Sunday, and are no longer molested. The merciless intolerance
that brought this sect into existence being no longer itself
tolerated, the chief mission of the Rogerenes is well nigh
accomplished. The children may soon enter into that full Christian
liberty, in the cause of which their fathers suffered and withstood,
during the dark era of ecclesiastical despotism in New England.

After the last veterans in this cause have been gathered to their
rest, the past is more and more crowded out by the busy present.
Most of the male descendants of the New London Rogerenes remove to
other parts. Many of them are among the hardiest and most
enterprising of the western pioneers. From homes in New York and
Pennsylvania they move farther and farther west, until no State but
has a strain from Bolles and Quaker Hill. Descendants who remain in
New London, lacking a leader of their own sect in this generation,
join in a friendly manner with other denominations, affiliating most
readily with the Baptists and being least associated with the still
dominant church. In Groton, however, despite some emigration, is
still to be found an unbroken band of Rogerenes, and a remnant upon
Quaker Hill continues in fellowship with those of Groton.

As the region occupied by John Rogers, John Bolles and their
neighborhood of followers received the name of Quaker Hill, so that
district in Groton occupied chiefly by Rogerenes received the name
of Quakertown.

We find no written account or authenticated tradition regarding the
beginnings of Quakertown, save that here was the home of the Groton
leader, John Waterhouse. Given a man of this stamp as resident for
half a century, and we have abundant cause for the founding in this
place of a community of Rogerenes as compact as that at Quaker Hill.

Quakertown occupies a district about two miles square in the
southeastern part of the present town of Ledyard. It was formerly a
part of Groton. Among the early Rogerenes of this vicinity was John
Culver. Besides gifts of land from his father, John Culver had
received a gift of land from Major John Pynchon of Springfield,
Mass., in recognition of the “care, pains and service” of his father
(John Culver, Sr.) in the division of Mr. Pynchon’s lands (Groton
Records) formerly owned in partnership with James Rogers. John
Culver, Jr., did not, however, depend upon farming, being a “panel
maker” by trade. As has been seen, John Culver and his family
removed to New Jersey about 1735, there to found a Rogerene
settlement. (See Chapter XII.) His daughter Esther, however,
remained in Groton, as the wife of John Waterhouse.

Among other early Groton residents was Samuel Whipple from
Providence, both of whose grandfathers were nonconformists who had
removed to Rhode Island to escape persecution in Massachusetts.
About 1712 this enterprising man purchased a large amount of land
(said to be 1,000 acres) about eight miles from the present
Quakertown locality, in or near the present village of Poquetannoc.
Upon a stream belonging to this property, he built iron-works and a
saw-mill. It is said that the product of the iron-works was of a
superior quality, and that anchors and iron portions of some of the
ships built in New London were made at these works.[170] Samuel
Whipple’s son Zacharia married a daughter (Elizabeth) of John
Rogers, 2d; a grandson (Noah) of his son Samuel married a
granddaughter (Hope Whipple) of the same leader, and a daughter
(Anne) of his son Daniel married a grandson (William Rogers) of the
same; while a daughter (Content) of his son Zachariah married
Timothy Waterhouse, son of John Waterhouse. Yet it was not until
early in the nineteenth century that descendants of Samuel Whipple
in the male line became residents of Quakertown.[171] That the early
affiliations of the Whipple family with the Rogerenes had fitted
their descendants for close union with the native residents of the
place is indicated by the prominent position accorded the Whipples
in this community.

Footnote 170:

In his will, dated 1727, Samuel Whipple left the iron-works and
saw-mill to his son Daniel; his lands with buildings to be divided
between his sons Samuel, Zacharia and Zephania. The portion of
Zacharia sold in 1734 for £1,000.

Footnote 171:

The first of the name who came to Quakertown was Samuel Whipple
(son of above Noah and Hope), born in 1766, a man of most
estimable character and devotedly attached to peace principles.
His brother Silas also settled in Quakertown. Samuel is ancestor
of those of the name now resident in that locality.

Other families of Groton and its neighborhood affiliated and
intermarried with Rogerenes early in the nineteenth century. William
Crouch of Groton married a daughter of John Bolles. This couple are
ancestors of many of the later day Rogerenes of Quakertown. Two sons
and two grandsons of Timothy Watrous married daughters of Alexander
Rogers of Quaker Hill (one of the younger sons of John, 2d).
Although there was a proportion of Rogers and Bolles lineage in this
community at an early date, there was not one of the Rogers or
Bolles name. Later, a son of Alexander Rogers, 2d, married in
Quakertown and settled there; but this is not a representative name
in that locality, while Watrous, Whipple and Crouch are to be
distinctly classed as such.

As for other families who joined the founders of Quakertown or
became associated with their descendants, it is safe to say that men
and women who, on account of strict adherence to apostolic
teachings, relinquished all hope of worldly pleasures and successes,
to join the devoted people of this isolated district, were of a most
religious and conscientious character.

Generally speaking, the New London descendants in the nineteenth
century are a not uncompromising leaven, scattered far and wide
among many people and congregations whose religious traditions and
predilections are, unlike their own, of an ecclesiastical type.
Every radical leaven of a truly Christian character is destined to
have beneficial uses, for which reason it cannot so much be
regretted that the fate of the New London community was to be broken
up and widely disseminated.

While the New London Rogerenes were, through the mollifying
influences of a liberal public opinion, as well as by a wide
emigration and lack of a leader fitted to the emergency, slowly but
surely blending with the world around them, quite a different policy
was crystallizing upon the Groton side. That the Rogerene sect
should continue and remain a separate people was undoubtedly the
intention of John Rogers, John Rogers, 2d, John Bolles and their
immediate followers; aye, a separate people until that day, should
such day ever arrive, when there should be a general acceptance of
the law of love instituted by Christ, in place of the old law of
force and retaliation. Yet not only had these early leaders more
than enough upon them in their desperate struggle for religious
liberty, but they could not sufficiently foresee conditions ahead of
their times, in order to establish their sect for a different era.

It was by the instinct of self-preservation combined with conscious
inability to secure any adequate outside footing in the new state of
affairs, that the small but compact band at Quakertown, beholding
with dismay and disapproval the breaking up of the main body on the
New London side, resolved to prevent such a disbanding of their own
Society, by carefully bringing up their children in the faith and as
carefully avoiding contact with other denominations. It was a heroic
purpose, the more so because such a policy of isolation was so
evidently perilous to the race. Not so evident was the fact that
such exclusiveness must eventually destroy the sect which they so
earnestly desired to preserve. Such, as has been seen, was not the
policy of that founder whose flock were “scattered throughout New
England,” and some of the most efficient of whose co-workers were
drawn from the midst of an antagonistic denomination; neither was it
the policy of him who carried his Petition not only to the General
Court of Connecticut, but to that of Massachusetts. Yet it was no
ordinary man who carried out the policy above outlined, with a
straightforward purpose and vigorous leadership, in the person of
elder Zephania Watrous, a grandson of John Waterhouse.

John Waterhouse was living in 1773, at which date he was
eighty-three years of age.[172] Considerably previous to that time
he must have been succeeded by some younger man.

Footnote 172:

At the same date, Andrew Davis must also have been advanced in
years.

Elder Timothy Watrous, the Groton leader, who next appears to view,
was a son of John Waterhouse, born in 1740. He is said to have been
an able preacher and a man of the highest degree of probity.

Supposing John Waterhouse to have been in active service to his
seventy-fifth year, Timothy could have succeeded him at the age of
twenty-four, at which age the latter took part in the great
countermove of 1764-66. His experience in this conflict is given in
his own words:—

In the fore part of my life, the principal religion of the country
was strongly defended by the civil power and many articles of the
established worship were in opposition to the religion of Jesus
Christ. Therefore I could not conform to them with a clear
conscience. So I became a sufferer. I endured many sore
imprisonments and cruel whippings. Once I received forty stripes
save one with an instrument of prim, consisting of rods about
three and a half feet long, with snags an inch long to tear the
flesh. Once I was taken and my head and face covered with warm
pitch, which filled my eyes and put me in great torment, and in
that situation was turned out in the night and had two miles to go
without the assistance of any person and but little help of my
eyes. And many other things I have suffered, as spoiling of goods,
mockings, etc. etc. But I do not pretend to relate particularly
what I have suffered; for it would take a large book to contain
it. But in these afflictions I have seen the hand of God in
holding me up; and I have had a particular love to my persecutors
at times, which so convicted them that they confessed that I was
assisted with the spirit of Christ. But although I had so tender a
feeling towards them that I could freely do them all the good in
my power; yet the truth of my cause would not suffer me to conform
to their worship, or flinch at their cruelty one jot, though my
life was at stake; for many times they threatened to kill me. But,
through the mercy of God, I have been kept alive to this day and
am seventy years of age; and I am as strong in the defense of the
truth as I was when I suffered. But my persecutors are all dead;
there is not one of them left.

This extract is from a book entitled “The Battle Axe,” written by
the above Timothy, Sr., and his sons Timothy and Zacharia. Timothy,
Jr., succeeded his father as leader and preacher in this Society.
Zacharia was a schoolmaster of considerable note, and at one time
taught school at “the head of the river.” He invented the coffee
mill so generally in use, which important invention, his widow,
being ignorant of its worth, sold for forty dollars. Having
discovered some copper ore in the vicinity of his house, he smelted
it and made a kettle. After a vain search to find a printer willing
to publish “The Battle Axe,” he made a printing-press, by means of
which, after his death, his brother Timothy published the book. Thus
“The Battle Axe,” even aside from its subject-matter, was a book of
no ordinary description. At a later date it was reprinted by the
ordinary means. Copies of the first edition are now exceedingly
rare, and held at a high price. There is a copy of this edition in
the Smithsonian Institute. We present an extract from the body of
this work in the _Appendix_, but no adequate knowledge of the book
can be obtained from so limited a space. Men who could venture to
decry war in the very height of public exaltation over the success
of the struggle for independence were too far ahead of their age, in
this regard, to attract other than unfriendly attention.[173]

Footnote 173:

The tone and style of this work as a whole are in marked contrast
to the works of John Rogers, 1st, John Rogers, 2d, and John
Bolles, whose writings, although earnest, are of a very
dispassionate character.

The first proof discovered, that the Rogerenes have conscientious
scruples in regard to paying the military fine,[174] is a printed
Petition issued by Alexander Rogers, one of the younger sons of
John, 2d, of Quaker Hill, a thorough Rogerene, and, as has been
seen, closely allied with those of Quakertown. This Petition is
dated 1810, at which time Alexander Rogers was eighty-two years of
age; his children, however, were comparatively young. The fine was
for not allowing his son to enter the train-band. (This Petition
will be found in _Appendix_.) It proves that, even at so late a date
as this, the authorities were seizing Rogerene property in the same
way as of old, taking in this instance for a fine of a few shillings
the only cow in the possession of the family, and making no return.
As of old, no attempt is made to sue for the amount taken over and
above the legal fine, but this Petition is printed and probably well
circulated in protest.[175]

Footnote 174:

It is very possible that this Society refused to pay military
fines from the first; but no record of such refusal has been
found.

Footnote 175:

An original printed copy of this Petition is extant in Quakertown.

Soon after the death of Timothy Watrous, Sr., and that of his son
Zachariah, occurred the death of Timothy, Jr., in 1814. The latter
was succeeded in leadership of the Society by his youngest brother,
Zephania, then about thirty years of age.

By this time, the Quakertown Society had become so large that there
was need of better accommodations for their meetings than could be
afforded in an ordinary house. In 1815 the Quakertown meeting-house
was built, that picturesque and not inartistic house of many gables,
the first floor of which was for the occupation of the elder and his
family, while the unpartitioned second story was for Rogerene
meetings.

Materials and labor for the building of this meeting-house were
furnished by members of the Society. The timber is said to have been
supplied from a forest felled by the September gale of 1815, and
sawed in a saw-mill owned by Rogerenes. The same gale had unroofed
the old Watrous (John Waterhouse) dwelling which stood near the site
of the meeting-house.[176]

Footnote 176:

The old meeting-house is upon land which was part of the farm
occupied by John Waterhouse, and afterwards by his son Timothy.

The Quakertown people had a schoolhouse of their own as well as a
meeting-house, and thus fully controlled the training of their youth
and preserved them from outside influence. About the middle of the
century, a regular meeting-house was built. The old meeting-house
was turned entirely into a dwelling. The newer meeting-house
resembles a schoolhouse.

Zephania Watrous was the last of the prominent leaders in this
community. He was not only gifted as a religious teacher, but
possessed much mechanical genius. By an ingenious device, water from
a large spring was conducted into the cellar of the meeting-house
and made to run the spinning-wheels in the living-room above, where
were made linen thread and fine table linen, in handsome patterns. A
daughter of this preacher (a sweet old lady, still living in this
house in 1900) stated that she used often in her youth to spin sixty
knots of thread a day.

It is alleged in Quakertown that Rogerenes were the first to decry
slavery. This claim is not without foundation. Some of the Quakers
censured this practice as early as 1750, although many of them
held slaves for a considerable time after that date. Slavery was
not publicly denounced in their Society until 1760. It was before
1730 that John Bolles came to the conclusion that slavery was not
in accordance with the teachings of the New Testament. Copies of
the papers by which he freed his slaves, bearing the above date,
may be seen among the New London town records. His resolve to keep
no more slaves and his reasons for it are among the traditions
cherished by his descendants. Attention has previously been called
to the evident aversion on the part of James Rogers and his son
John to the practice of keeping slaves in life bondage. There is
no indication that John Rogers, Sr., ever kept a slave, and many
indications to the contrary. His son John, however, kept slaves to
some extent, some of whom at least he freed for “faithful service”
(New London Records). Two able-bodied “servants,” are found in his
inventory.[177] His son James mentions a servant, “Rose,” in his
will of 1754. His son John, however, never kept a slave, and his
family were greatly opposed to that practice, by force of early
teaching. With the exceptions here noted, no proof appears of the
keeping of slaves among the early Rogerenes, although many of them
were in circumstances to indulge in that practice, which was
prevalent in their neighborhood. The date at which slavery was
denounced by the Rogerene Society does not appear.

Footnote 177:

Town records reveal one of these as a freeman, years after, in a
neighboring town, a respected colored man, with an exceptionally
lively family of children.

It is certain that the Rogerenes of Quakertown were not only among
the first to declare against the brutality of war and the sanction
it received from ministers and church members, but among the
foremost in the denunciation of slavery. Nor were there those
lacking on the New London side to join hands with their Groton
friends on these grounds. The churches of New London, in common with
others, would not listen to any meddling with slavery, partisanship
on which question would surely have divided those churches. The
Rogerenes saw no justifiable evasion, for Christians, of the rule to
love God and your fellowmen, to serve God and not Mammon, and to
leave the consequences with Him who gave the command.

At the period of the antislavery agitation, some of the descendants
of John Rogers and John Bolles on the New London side (no longer
called by the name of Rogerenes), and other sympathizers with those
of Quakertown, attended meetings in the upper chamber of the house
of many gables, and joined with them in antislavery and other
Rogerene sentiments, declarations and endeavors. Among these
visitors was William Bolles,[178] the enterprising book publisher of
New London (Part I., Chapter VII.), who had become an attendant upon
the services of the Baptist church of New London; but who withdrew
from such attendance after discovery that the minister and leading
members of that church expected those opposed to slavery to maintain
silence upon that subject. He published a paper in this cause, in
1838, called _The Ultimatum_, with the following heading:—

ULTIMATUM.

THE PRESS MUZZLED: PULPIT GAGGED: LIBERTY OF SPEECH DESTROYED; THE
CONSTITUTION TRAMPLED UNDER FOOT; MOBS TRIUMPHANT, AND CITIZENS
BUTCHERED: OR, SLAVERY ABOLISHED—THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE.—FELLOW
CITIZENS, MAKE YOUR ELECTION.

Footnote 178:

Great-grandson of John Rogers, 2d, and of John Bolles.

A few disconnected sentences (by way of brevity) selected from one
of the editorial columns of this sheet, will give some idea of its
style:—

It is with pleasure we make our second appearance before our
fellow citizens, especially when we remember the avidity with
which our first number was read, so that we were obliged to print
a second edition. Our sheet is the organ of no association of men
or body of men, but it is the friend of the oppressed and the
uncompromising enemy of all abuses in Church and State. Our
friends S. and J. must not be surprised that their communications
are not admitted—the language is too harsh, and partakes a little
too much of the denunciatory spirit for us. We care not how
severely sin is rebuked, but we would remind them that a rebuke is
severe in proportion as the spirit is kind and the language
courteous—our object is to conciliate and reform, not to
exasperate.

About the year 1850, several noted abolitionists came to New London
to hold a meeting. Rogerenes from Quakertown gathered with others to
hear the speeches. When the time for the meeting arrived, the use of
the court-house, which had previously been promised them, was
refused. In this dilemma, Mr. Bolles told the speakers they could go
to the burying-ground and there speak, standing upon his mother’s
grave. The meeting took place, but during its continuance the
speakers were pelted with rotten eggs.[179]

Footnote 179:

This information was furnished by a native of Quakertown who
attended this meeting—Mr. Ira Whipple, afterwards of Westerly.

Mr. Bolles often entertained at his house speakers in the abolition
cause. Such speakers were also entertained at Quakertown, where they
frequently held meetings when not allowed to speak elsewhere in the
region. The Rogerenes of this place also assisted in the escape of
fugitive slaves, Quakertown being, between 1830 and 1850, one of the
stations of the Underground Railroad. Fugitive slaves were brought
here, under cover of darkness, concealed in the meeting-house and
forwarded by night to the next station. For these daring deeds, the
Quakertown people were repeatedly mobbed and suffered losses.

Rogerenes were also among the first in the cause of temperance, nor
did they confine their temperance principles to the use of tobacco
and intoxicating liquors, but advocated temperance in eating as
well. Although never observing the fast days appointed by
ecclesiastical law, they made use of fasting with prayer, and fasted
for their physical as well as spiritual good, judging the highest
degree of mental or spiritual power not to be obtained by persons
who indulged in “fullness of bread.” (See “Answer to Mr. Byles,” by
Joseph Bolles, in _Appendix_.) The Rogerenes of Quakertown have been
and still are earnest advocates of temperance principles.

The isolation and exclusiveness of the Quakertown community in the
nineteenth century has already been noted as a distinct departure
from the liberal and outreaching policy of the early Rogerenes.
There was yet another departure, in regard to freedom of speech,
which culminated, about the middle of the nineteenth century, in a
division of this community into two opposing parties. At this date,
Elder Zephania Watrous was advanced in years; but he had been, and
still was, a man of great force of character, and was accounted a
rigid disciplinarian. Only a man of such type could have held this
community to its strictly exclusive policy for so long a period.

Free inquiry, with expression of individual views, was favored by
the Rogerenes from the first, and formed an important feature of
their meetings for study and exposition of gospel truths. Largely by
this very means were their youth trained to interest in, and
knowledge of, the Scriptures. Such freedom had been instituted by
the founder of the sect, with no restrictions save the boundary line
between liberty and license.[180]

Footnote 180:

In Mr. Bowna’s account of his conversation with John Rogers (1703)
he states that John Rogers said his Society “admitted any one who
wanted information concerning the meaning of any text to put the
question, and it was then expounded and spoken to as they
understood it; and one being admitted to show his dissent with his
reasons for it: ‘Thus,’ said he, ‘we improve our youth in
Scriptural knowledge.’ I asked him if they did not sometimes carry
their differences in sentiment too far, to their hurt? He
acknowledged there was danger in doing so, but they guarded
against it as much as they could.”

The elder did not favor free speech in the meetings of the Society;
he undoubtedly judged that such freedom would tend to disorder and
division. The sequel, however, proved that a Society which could be
held firmly together, for more than a hundred years, under a
remarkably liberal policy in this regard, could be seriously divided
under the policy of repression.

The feeling upon this point became so intense that public meetings
were held in Quakertown for full discussion of the subject pro and
con. These meetings excited wide interest, and were attended by many
persons from adjoining towns. The party for free speech won the
victory; but the division tended to weaken the little church, the
decline of which is said to date from that period.[181]

Footnote 181:

In his last sickness, Elder Zephania Watrous sent for the leader
of the party which had opposed his conservative views and asked
forgiveness for anything on his own part that might have seemed
unfriendly to his opponent.

For nearly two hundred years, New Testament doctrines as expounded
by John Rogers (in his writings) have been taught in Quakertown, and
the Bible studied and restudied anew, with no evasion or explaining
away of its apparent meanings. Morality has been taught not as a
separate code, but as a principal part of the religion of Jesus
Christ. Great prominence has been given to non-resistance and all
forms of application of the law of love.

Women were from the first encouraged to speak in Rogerene meetings,
the meetings referred to being those for exhortation, prayer and
praise. It will be seen (_Appendix_) that John Bolles wrote a
treatise in favor of allowing women to speak in such meetings. Mr.
Bownas also quotes John Rogers as saying that women were admitted to
speak in Rogerene meetings, “some of them being qualified by the
gift of the Spirit.”

Among the principles rigidly insisted upon in Quakertown are that
persons shall not be esteemed on account of wealth, learning or
position, but only for moral and religious characteristics; strict
following of the Golden Rule by governments as well as by
individuals, hence no going to war, or retaliatory punishments
(correction should be kindly and beneficent); no profane language,
or the taking of an oath under any circumstances; no voting for any
man having principles contrary to the teachings of the New
Testament; no set prayers in meetings, but dependence on the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit; no divorce except for fornication;
to suffer rather than to cause suffering. There has always been
great disapprobation of “hireling ministers.” None of the Rogerene
elders ever received payment for preaching or for pastoral work.

A gentleman who has been prominent in the Quakertown Society being
questioned, some years since, in regard to the lack of sympathy
between the Rogerenes and other denominations, gave the following
reasons for a state of feeling on both sides which is not wholly
absent even at the present day.

“The other churches considered cessation of work on Sunday to be a
part of the Christian religion, and to be forced upon all as such.
Many of their preachers were led into the ministry as a learned and
lucrative profession, with no spiritual call to preach, being
educated by men for that purpose. In many instances these preachers
were worldly-minded to a great extent. The churches believed in war
and in training men to kill their fellowmen. Ministers and church
members used liquor freely. Church members held slaves, and
ministers upheld the practice. For a long time the Rogerenes were
compelled to assist in the support of the Congregational church, to
which of all churches they were most opposed, on account of its
assumption of authority over others in the matter of religion. The
Rogerenes were fined for not attending the regular meetings, and
cruelly persecuted for not keeping sacred the ‘idol Sabbath’ so
strictly observed by other denominations. Although persecution has
ceased, prejudice still remains on both sides, partly inherited, as
it were, and partly the result of continued differences of opinion.”

At the present day, meetings in Quakertown are similar to Baptist or
Methodist conference meetings. The Lord’s Supper is observed once a
quarter. In the old times the Rogerenes held a feast once a year, in
imitation of the last passover with the disciples, at which time a
lamb was killed and eaten with unleavened bread. The Sunday service
consisted of preaching and exposition of Scripture, while prayers,
singing of hymns, relation of experience, etc., were reserved for
the evening meetings of the Society. The latter were meetings for
the professing Christians, while the Sunday meetings were public
meetings, where all were welcomed. It will be observed that this was
according to the apostolic practice, and not materially different
from the practice of other denominations at the present day.

If there was so decided an aversion to physicians on the part of the
early Rogerenes as has been represented, it has not come down to the
present time among the people of Quakertown, as have most of the
oldtime sentiments and customs; yet evidence is not lacking to prove
that their predecessors made use of faith and prayer in the healing
of disease, and that there have been cases of such healing in this
Society. One of the latter, within the memory of persons yet living,
was recounted to us by the gentleman to whom we have referred, upon
our inquiring of him if he had ever heard of any cures of this kind
in Quakertown. Pointing to a portrait on the wall, he said, “That
man was cured in a remarkable manner.” He then stated the
circumstances as follows:—

“He had been sick with dysentery, and was so low that his death was
momentarily expected; his wife had even taken out the clothes she
wished placed upon him after death. While he lay in this seemingly
last stage of the disease, he suddenly became able to speak, and
said, in a natural tone, to his wife: ‘Bring me my clothes.’ She
told him he was very ill and must not try to exert himself; but he
continued so urgent that, to pacify him, she brought the clothes he
usually wore. He at once arose, dressed himself and was apparently
well, and so continued. He said that, while he lay there in that
weak condition, he suddenly felt an invisible hand placed upon his
head and heard a voice saying: ‘Arise, my son, you are healed,’ upon
which he immediately felt a complete change, from extreme illness
and weakness to health and strength; hence his request to his wife.”

There are numerous traditions regarding the offering of prayers for
recovery by the bedsides of the sick, on the part of the early
elders of this community, who were sometimes desired to render this
service outside of their own Society, and readily complied.

That the founders of this community, both men and women, were
persons of no ordinary mental and physical vigor, is attested by the
excellent mental and physical condition of their descendants, after
generations of intermarriage within their own borders. At the
present day, it would puzzle an expert to calculate their
complicated relationships. In a visit to this locality, some years
since, we met two of the handsomest, brightest and sweetest old
ladies we ever beheld, each of whom had passed her eightieth year,
and each of whom bore the name of Esther (as did the wife of John
Waterhouse). Both were descendants of John Rogers, and of the first
settlers of Quakertown, several times over.[182] One of them told us
that her grandmother took a cap-border to meeting to hem in the time
of the great countermove, at which time and for which cause she was
whipped at the New London whipping-post; also that for chopping a
few sticks of wood in his back yard, on Sunday, a Quakertown man was
“dragged to New London prison.” This is but a hint of the traditions
that linger in this community regarding the days of persecution. The
other lady, a daughter of Elder Zephania Watrous, lived in the old
meeting-house, where she was born. In the room with this gentle and
comely old lady were five generations of the Watrous family, herself
the eldest, and a child of four or five years the youngest, all fair
representatives of Quakertown people; healthy, intelligent and
good-looking.

Footnote 182:

It is not to be inferred that no new families have come into
Quakertown, or that none of the people have married outside.
Accessions to this community have been not infrequent, both by
marriage and otherwise.

To a stranger in these parts, it is a wonder how the inhabitants
have maintained themselves in such an apparently sterile and rocky
region.[183] In fact, these people did not depend upon agriculture
for a livelihood. Although thus isolated, they were from the first
thrifty, ingenious and enterprising. The property of the first
settlers having been divided and subdivided among large families, it
was not long before their descendants must either desert their own
community or invent methods of bringing into Quakertown adequate
profits from without. Consequently, we find them, early in the
nineteenth century, selling, in neighboring towns, cloths, threads,
yarn and other commodities of their own manufacture. A large
proportion of the men learned trades and worked away from home
during the week. Many of them were stone-masons, a trade easily
learned in this rocky region, and one in which they became experts.
In later times, we find some of them extensively engaged in raising
small fruits, especially strawberries.

Footnote 183:

Quakertown is said not to be so rocky and sterile as it appears to
a person riding over the road, but to have a considerable amount
of good farming-land.

Although, with the decline of persecution, no new leader arose to
rank with those of the past, bright minds have not been lacking in
later days in this fast thinning community, which, like other remote
country places, has suffered by the emigration of its youth to more
promising fields of action.

Timothy Watrous, 2d, invented the first machine for cutting cold
iron into nails. He also made an entire dock himself.

Samuel Chapman, a descendant of John Rogers and John Waterhouse, is
said to have made and sailed the first steamship on the Mississippi.
He founded large iron-works in New Orleans. His son Nathan was one
of the founders of the Standard Iron Works of Mystic.

Jonathan Whipple, a descendant of John Rogers, having a deaf and
dumb son, conceived the idea of teaching him to speak and to
understand by the motion of the lips, by which method he soon spoke
sonorously and distinctly, and became a man of integrity and
cultivation. Zerah C. Whipple, a grandson of Jonathan, becoming
interested in this discovery, resolved to devote his life to its
perfection. He invented the Whipple Natural Alphabet, and with the
aid of his grandfather, Jonathan, founded The Home School for the
deaf and dumb, at Mystic.

Julia Crouch, author of “Three Successful Girls” (a descendant of
John Rogers and John Bolles), was a Rogerene of Quakertown.

Ida Whipple Benham, a well-known poet, and for many years an
efficient member of the Peace Society, was of Quakertown
origin.[184]

Footnote 184:

The following is from a poem by Mrs. Benham, entitled “Peace.”

Where is the nation brave enough to say,
“I have no need of sword, or shield, or gun;
I will disarm before the world this day;
I will stand free, though lonely, ’neath the sun.

“I fear no foe, since I am friend to all;
I fear no evil, since I wish no harm;
I will not keep my soldier sons in thrall;
They shall be slaves no more—let them disarm!”

That State will stand upon the heights of time
Foremost in honor, bravest of the brave;
Girded with glory, radiant, sublime,
This shall her title be, “The strong to save!”

While other nations boast of arms or art,
She, ’lone of earth shall stand, the truly great!
Brave in forbearance, loftiness of heart,
The world shall see, in her, a Christian State.

Boast not your bravery, O, ye fearful ones,
Ye trembling nations armed with coward steel,
Who hide yourselves behind your conscript sons
And trample freedom with an iron heel!

Vaunt not your righteousness, nor dare to call
Yourselves by His high name, the Prince of Peace,
The holy Christ of God, Who died for all,
That love might reign and sin and sorrow cease.

My country! O, my country! strong and free,
Dare thou the godlike deed that waits thy hand.
Within thy walls wed Peace to Liberty—
Say to thy soldier sons, “Disarm! Disband!”

Set thou the step for Freedom’s stately march;
The Old World after thee shall fall in line.
Follow the pole star crowning heaven’s high arch,
The Star of Peace with radiance divine.

“All men are equal!” graved in lines of light,
Through storm and stress this motto doth not fail;
All men are brothers! set thy virgin might
To prove man’s brotherhood; thou shalt prevail.

Thou shalt prevail, my country, in the strength
Of Him who guides the spheres and lights the sun;
And joy shall reign through all thy breadth and length,
And thou shalt hear the gracious voice, “Well done!”

In recent years, the Rogerenes of Quakertown have given much
attention to the cause of peace and arbitration. The Universal Peace
Union having been established by the Quakers, soon after the
rebellion, the people of Quakertown invited members of that Society
to join them in holding a Peace Convention near Mystic, the most
suitable available point in the vicinity of Quakertown. Accordingly,
in August, 1868, the first of an unbroken series of yearly Peace
Meetings was held in an attractive grove on a hill by the Mystic
River. Including the invited guests, there were present forty-three
persons. The second meeting, in September, 1869, showed such an
increase of interest and attendance that the Connecticut Peace
Society was organized, as a branch of The Universal Peace Union, and
Jonathan Whipple of Quakertown was elected president. This venerable
man (to whom we have before referred), besides publishing and
circulating _The Bond of Peace_ (a paper advocating peace
principles), had long been active as a speaker and correspondent in
the cause so dear to his heart.

In 1871, James E. Whipple, of Quakertown, a young man of high moral
character, having refused from conscientious scruples to pay the
military tax imposed upon him, was arrested by the town authorities
of Ledyard and confined in the Norwich jail, where he remained
several weeks.

About the same time, Zerah C. Whipple, being called upon to pay a
military tax, refused to thus assist in upholding a system which he
believed to be anti-Christian and a relic of barbarous ages. He was
threatened with imprisonment; but some kindly disposed person,
interfering without his knowledge, paid the tax.

In 1872 a petition, signed by members of the Peace Society, was
presented to the legislature of Connecticut praying that body to
make such changes in the laws of the State as should be necessary to
secure the petitioners in the exercise of their conscientious
convictions in this regard. The petition was not granted; but the
subject excited no little interest and sympathy among some of the
legislators.

In the summer of 1874, Zerah C. Whipple, still refusing to do what
his conscience forbade, was taken from his home by the tax collector
of Ledyard and placed in the New London jail. His arrest produced a
profound impression, he being widely known as the principal of the
school for teaching the dumb to speak, and also as a very honest,
high-souled man.

During his six week’s imprisonment, the young man appealed to the
prisoners to reform their modes of life, reproved them for vulgarity
and profanity, furnished them books to read, and began teaching
English to a Portuguese confined there. The jailer himself said, to
the commissioner, that although he regretted Mr. Whipple’s
confinement in jail on his own account, he should be sorry to have
him leave, as the men had been more quiet and easy to manage since
he had been with them. On the evening of the sixth day, an entire
stranger called at the jail and desired to know the amount of the
tax and costs, which he paid, saying he knew the worth of Mr.
Whipple, that his family for generations back had never paid the
military tax, and he wished to save the State the disgrace of
imprisoning a person guilty of no crime. This man was not a member
of the Peace Society. Mr. Whipple afterwards learned that his arrest
was illegal, the laws of the State providing that where property is
tendered, or can be found, the person shall be unmolested. The
authorities of Groton did not compel the payment of this tax by
persons conscientiously opposed to it.

In 1872, _The Bond of Peace_ was removed to Quakertown and its name
changed to _The Voice of Peace_. Zerah C. Whipple undertook its
publication and continued it until 1874, when it was transferred to
a committee of The Universal Peace Union. It is now published in
Philadelphia as the official organ of that Society, under the title
of _The Peacemaker_.

The call of Mrs. Julia Ward Howe for a woman’s Peace Society was
heartily responded to by the Connecticut Peace Society, and the 2d
of June was for years celebrated, by appropriate exercises, as
Mother’s Day.

The annual grove meeting increased rapidly in attendance and
interest. The number present at the tenth meeting was estimated at
2,500. In 1875, it was decided to prolong the time of the convention
to a second day’s session, and the two day’s session was attended
with unabated interest.

Jonathan Whipple, first president of the Connecticut Peace Society,
died in March, 1875. Shortly before the end, he was heard to say:
“Blessed are the peacemakers; but there has been no blessing
promised to warriors.”

The grove meeting is now held three days annually. It is the largest
gathering of the kind in the world. The large tent used at first was
replaced some years since by a commodious wooden structure, which is
the property of the Universal Peace Union.

From the first, some of the most noted speakers on peace and kindred
topics have occupied the platform, among them Belva Lockwood, Mary
A. Livermore, Julia Ward Howe, Aaron M. Powell, Rowland B. Howard,
Robert T. Paine, Delia S. Parnell, George T. Angell, H. L. Hastings,
William Lloyd Garrison, etc. The Hutchinson family used frequently
to sing at these meetings. The only one now remaining of that gifted
choir, a gentleman as venerably beautiful as any bard of ancient
times, has, in recent summers, favored the audience in the grove
with several sweet songs appropriate to the occasion.

It is said that the winding road leading about Quakertown is in the
shape of a horseshoe. May this be an omen of honors yet to come to
this little battlefield, where an isolated, despised, yet
all-devoted band have striven for nearly two centuries to be true to
the pure and simple precepts of the New Testament as taught them by
sufferers for obedience to those truths, beside many a fireside
where tales of woes for past endeavors, mingled with prayers for
future victories, have nerved young hearts to the old-time
endurance, for His name’s sake.

Many are the noble men and women who, from first to last, have been
content to live and die in this obscure locality, unhonored by the
world and sharing not its luxuries or pleasures, consoled by the
promises of the New Testament: promises which are not to the rich
and honored (as such), but chiefly to those who for obedience to the
teachings of this Word are outcast and despised, poor and unlearned,
and even, if need be, persecuted and slain.

Not because that good man, Jonathan Whipple, was more conscientious
or talented than many another of the Rogerenes of this locality, but
because he was a good specimen of the kind of men that have from
time to time been reared in this Society, there is given in the
following note[185] an abstract from a published account of his
life, a copy of which was forwarded to us by his daughter, Mrs.
Whaley, in 1893. In the letter containing this enclosure she said:
“I hope that justice will at length be done our so long
misunderstood and misrepresented people.”

Footnote 185:

Jonathan Whipple was born in 1794. He never attended school, but
it was not from lack of inclination, for he most ardently desired
an education. The reader from which his mother taught him his
letters he learned so thoroughly that he could repeat it verbatim.
In arithmetic he had no instruction further than the fundamental
rules, but while he was yet a boy he learned enough of numbers to
answer for ordinary occasions. His father set him his first copies
in writing, but he improved so rapidly that he soon needed better
instruction and got neighboring school-teachers to write copies
for him. Ere many years had elapsed, he had no need of copies,
since he ranked in penmanship among the first.

Although Mr. Whipple was a hard-working mason, he so much felt the
need of more education than he possessed, that, after he had
married and settled down in life, he set about informing himself
more thoroughly than his previous opportunities had allowed. He so
far qualified himself, that he was employed several terms to teach
a school of over seventy pupils. In point of discipline and
promptness of education his school ranked first in town.

He contributed many articles to various papers, touching on the
great topics before the public. The temperance cause received his
hearty support, for he was a total abstinence man, at a time when
even the most respectable men regularly took their “grog.”

He was an abolitionist of the most radical type long before the
names of Garrison and Phillips were known in the land.

As an advocate for universal peace, he was found among the
pioneers in the cause. In short, he was a philanthropist in the
broadest and truest sense of the word; he labored all his life for
the good of his fellow-creatures. He was kind and generous; was
never engaged in a law-suit in his life, and spent more time with
the sick than any other non-professional man of our acquaintance.
In the summer of 1820 the typhoid fever raged in his neighborhood;
he spent his whole time, without a thought of reward, among the
sufferers.

His blameless and useful life made him respected and beloved
wherever he was known.

The fame, however, that he acquired was chiefly due to his
remarkable success in teaching the deaf to talk.

When the youngest of his five children was old enough to walk, he
noticed that, although the boy seemed active and intelligent, he
made no effort to speak. The discovery that his little Enoch was
actually deaf, was a trial which seemed greater than he could
endure. To think that this (his youngest) son must be forever shut
out of the world of sound and doomed to endless silence was
unendurable. After many fruitless trials to make the boy hear and
repeat what he heard, the father gave it up as useless.

Mr. Whipple had never heard of the schools in Europe where the
deaf are taught articulation and lip-reading; but, at length,
noticing that Enoch would sometimes attempt to repeat a word, if
he was looking directly at the speaker’s mouth, the thought
occurred to the father that perhaps every word had a shape, and
that by learning the shape of each letter, as moulded by the
mouth, the boy might be taught to imitate it. The task was begun.
Every moment Mr. Whipple could spare,—for he was a poor man, and
besides his own family there were some orphan children depending
upon him,—he devoted to teaching his little son. It was
astonishing what progress was made. Other members of the family
also acted as teachers, and as Enoch grew towards manhood, he was
not merely on par with his associates, but acknowledged by all to
be a superior youth. He could read, could write a nice hand, and
for deciphering poor penmanship there was scarcely his equal for
miles around. He could also talk. To such perfection was his
instruction carried by his energetic father that this deaf man has
done business with strangers, bought goods of merchants, etc., and
has gone away without leaving a suspicion of his infirmity.

As has been seen, the efforts of Mr. Whipple did not end with
teaching his own son. He made many successful experiments with
other deaf mutes, which led to the founding of The Home School for
the deaf at Mystic.

After Jonathan Whipple had passed his seventieth year, his
faculties remained unimpaired, and he was as indefatigable in his
efforts to improve the condition of the afflicted as when his
theory was first put in practice. His life was a useful and
beautiful one; not a struggle to gain wealth or to win fame; but
simply to do good. His declining years were cheered by the
knowledge that he had wronged none and bettered many.—_Abstract
from Life of Jonathan Whipple in “Men of Mark.”_

Presentation of facts belongs to the historian; but the effect and
uses of the information thus afforded is for the reader. We have
collected and set in order such attested facts as we have been able
to discover relative to the history of the Rogerenes, of which sect
the people of Quakertown are the only distinct representatives of
the present day.

* * * * *

If at the end of this history it should be asked: “How can the
Rogerene sect be described in briefest terms?” we reply:—

“The doctrines and customs of this sect were patterned as closely as
possible after the early church of the Gentiles, instituted under
apostolic effort and direction; hence it included the evangelical
portions and excluded the unevangelical portions of the doctrines
and customs of every sect known to Christendom. Should a new sect be
brought into existence on strictly evangelical lines, it would, to
all intents and purposes, be the same as the Rogerene Society.” It
is evident, however, that a marked feature of the Rogerene sect
would be lacking to such a church in modern times, viz., the
constant need of withstanding ecclesiastical laws whose unimpeded
sway would have prevented the existence of any truly evangelical
church. It is easy to perceive that the growth of such a spirit of
close adherence to New Testament teachings as animated the Rogerenes
would tend to the obliteration of sects.

Should the churches of Christendom ever awake to the fact that not
one of them but has made and countenanced signal departures from the
teachings of Christ and his apostles, both in principles and modes,
and that their differences one from the other are founded upon
variations from the first divinely instituted church, and should
they, on thus awakening, join hands, in council assembled, with the
purpose of uniting in one church of the apostolic model, fully
devoted to the cause of peace on earth and good will to men, then
would dawn the millennium.

It is plain that John Rogers had faith in the people at large for
the realization of such a church universal, could adequate
leadership be procured. He believed that of existing societies of
the evangelical order having in his day a fair start, that of the
Quakers (by its peace principles and dependence on the Holy Spirit)
was best fitted to take the lead. For such an end he had urged upon
that Society the instituting among them the ordinances of Baptism
and the Lord’s Supper, which they had rejected, and he expressed his
opinion forcibly when he said to Mr. Bownas in 1703 that if the
Quakers would take those two ordinances they could “carry all before
them.” (As quoted by Mr. Bownas.)

CHAPTER XIV.
DRAGON’S TEETH.

Mr. J. R. Bolles has aptly compared the falsehoods sown by the
author of “The Prey Taken from the Strong,” to dragon’s teeth
constantly springing up anew (Part I, Chapter I). When Peter Pratt
wrote the book thus entitled, he was evidently stimulated and
encouraged by the ecclesiastical demand for such a publication, and
trusted that lack of correct information on the part of the general
public would secure credence for it. The falsities evident in the
work, through its contradictions in one part of statements made in
another, must have been due either to lack of careful observation on
the part of the writer or to his confidence of such lack on the part
of the public to whom it was addressed.

There was an evident personal object in this deliberate attempt to
malign the character of John Rogers three years after his death; by
statements which Peter Pratt of all men knew to be false; he having
himself been a Rogerene, closely allied and attached to one of the
leaders of that Society. Having since become a prominent member of
the ruling church, and intimate with leading ecclesiastics of that
church, in what better way could he prove to his influential friends
his regret at having been associated with the hated nonconformist
than by lending himself to the ruling order in their endeavors to
stamp out whatever respect for and interest in the Rogerenes and
their cause had found lodgement in the minds of the public?

On the ecclesiastical side, who could address the public with better
chance of being heard and credited than a popular lawyer, known to
have had intimate acquaintance with the obnoxious sect? For despite
the blunder in regard to computation of longitude (Part I, Chapter
IV), Peter Pratt was a man of considerable note in Connecticut, both
as a lawyer and speaker, at the time he wrote this singular book.
Joshua Hempstead says in his Diary: “Nov. 25, 1730. Melancholy news
of the death of Mr. Peter Pratt of ys Town,[186] Attorney at Law, is
confirmed, who died at Hartford on Saturday last,—the finest Orator
in the Colony of his Profession.”

Footnote 186:

Peter Pratt appears to have lived in East Lyme, then a part of New
London.

The literary ability of this man is shown to be far below that
ascribed to his oratory, the style of this sole book of his
authorship being very ordinary; while the reply of his half-brother
John Rogers, 2d, as well as other works of that author, will bear
comparison with some of the best works of his time, for clear,
vigorous logic and expression, enlivened by sparkles of wit and
acumen, which qualifies are not observable in the literary effort of
this other son of his mother.

The principal point to be secured being an impeachment of the
character of John Rogers, free use is made by Peter Pratt of the
accusation presented by the Griswolds in the petition for divorce,
by way of declaring that the separation of John Rogers from his wife
and children was on account of certain immoralities charged against
him, which pretended immoralities Peter Pratt names, on no other
authority than the entirely ambiguous statements of the records of
the General Court regarding the Petition of Elizabeth in 1675, which
Petition (according to said records) distinctly stated that the
chief reason of her plea did not relate to breach of the marriage
covenant, of which she admitted that she had small reason to
complain.

The exact charges manufactured by the Griswolds under the head of
“Breach of Covenant” may be found in the bill of damages still to be
seen in the Connecticut State Library (see Chapter II), which bill
was brought against John Rogers by Matthew Griswold during the trial
for divorce, and in which is no imputation regarding the moral
character of John Rogers. Peter Pratt, although avowing familiarity
with these records, declares a serious breach of the marriage
covenant to be one of the chief causes for this separation; while he
does not in any sort intimate to the reader that the charge brought
forward for the divorce related—as he well knew—to a period before
marriage, and to some fault known only to John Rogers himself, until
he divulged the same to his wife.

Peter Pratt also states that John Rogers owned out of court to the
charge against him, and that the person intrusted with that
confidence gave this evidence against him, for proof of which
statement the reader is referred to files of the General Court.
Evidently Peter Pratt did not expect any of his readers to consult
said files; for although it is to this day on the files of that
court that John Rogers was said to have owned out of court to the
charge against him, it is stated in the same connection that the man
who avowed this confidence on the part of John Rogers, upon being
asked the time and place of the confession, gave such reply that
John Rogers was able to prove an _alibi_.

The one other opportunity improved by Peter Pratt for an attack upon
the moral character of John Rogers, is in regard to his marriage
with Mary Ransford, twenty-five years after the charge made for the
purpose of obtaining the divorce. In his account of this marriage,
he not only falsifies and vulgarizes the circumstances in a very
singular manner, but, while in one place he represents the marriage
to Mary to have been less of choice than necessity, in another place
he avers that he himself was, at the very time of this marriage, on
friendly and intimate terms with John Rogers, and so continued, to
the extreme of actual discipleship, for years after that marriage.

It would seem that any careful and intelligent reader of “The Prey
Taken from the Strong,” however prejudiced, could but note this
singular inconsistency,—that Peter Pratt, while knowing to any such
irregularity as he claims on the part of John Rogers, should, at
that very time, have taken him as a spiritual guide, and continued,
for years after, under his leadership. The readers of that day, in
that locality, must have known that Peter Pratt’s connection with
the Rogerene Society was at a date following the marriage to Mary
Ransford, which latter occurred in 1699, while his own declaration
that when he was imprisoned with other Rogerenes in that cause he
had a young wife at home, fixes the date of this imprisonment as
late as 1709, which was the year of his marriage.

In order to appear to substantiate his calumnious intimations, Peter
Pratt states that, to the best of his recollection, the first child
of Mary Ransford was born “three or four months” after the ceremony
before the County Court. He also states that she was complained of
by the court on the birth of this child. As a lawyer in this town,
he dwelt, so to speak, among the court records, and could easily
have found the date of this child’s birth, had he intended to make a
truthful statement. The County Court record still remains distinct
and easily to be found, which says that this child was born in
January, 1700, exactly seven months after the marriage of John
Rogers to Mary Ransford, and, as stated by John Rogers, 2d, “within
the time allowed by law.” It was born at the date at which John
Rogers, 2d, brought his bride to Mamacock, to the great annoyance
and irritation of Mary. It is well known that less disturbances than
this have often hastened the birth of a child. Proof is evident that
neither John Bolles, nor any other of the highly honorable friends
and neighbors of John Rogers, who had the very best opportunity of
knowing the facts of the case, showed the slightest diminution of
allegiance to him at this date, and quite as evident that Peter
Pratt himself continued right on to full discipleship.

The two chief calumnies in this work of Peter Pratt having been
presented, attention is now called to two of a different character.

I saw him once brought into court,—he had contrived the matter so
as to be just without the door when he was called to answer. His
features and gestures expressed more fury than I ever saw in a
distracted person of any sort, and I soberly think that if a
legion of devils had pushed him in headlong, his entrance had not
been more horrid and ghastly, nor have seemed more preternatural.

John Roger’s declaration that the indictment was a lie is brought
out in similar style, also the exclamations of other Rogerenes
present in the court-room.

This plainly refers to the trial before the County Court in
November, 1719, when John Rogers is said (by court records) to have
come into court “in a violent manner,” etc., and, when the
indictment was read, to have exclaimed that it was “a devilish ly”
(see Chapter IX), for which contempt of court he was fined only
twenty shillings, which nominal sum was never collected. Taking into
consideration the evident sympathy of the jury on this occasion of
“violent entrance,” etc., and the great ease with which Peter Pratt
is proven capable of misstating and exaggerating facts, the reader
will admit the probability that this entrance of John Rogers into
the court-room, and his words there spoken, together with those of
his followers, were neither more nor less than impassioned
expressions of indignation and protest regarding the terrible
cruelty to which the wife of John Bolles was then being subjected.
She was, as will be remembered, at that moment lying in a critical
condition in New London prison, where the death of her child had
just occurred. Peter Pratt, then present in that court-room, by his
own avowal, knew all of these facts, and knew also that the life of
this woman was saved only by such determined efforts at full
publicity on the part of the Rogerenes and their sympathizers. Yet
he utterly conceals these circumstances from the reader, while he
exaggerates the Rogerene protests, and represents them as being
simply senseless and grotesque.

It is from this description by Peter Pratt that historians have
borrowed their statements regarding the loud voice of John Rogers,
and that Rogerenes were accustomed to charge dignitaries with lying,
etc.[187]

Footnote 187:

To this statement of Peter Pratt is traceable the following from
Miss Caulkins: “Suppose at the present day a man like Rogers
should enter, etc., accompanying all this with violent
contortions, coarse expletives, and foaming at the mouth, would it
not require great forbearance,” etc.

Nothing was more foreign to the teachings of John Rogers and his
followers, or more abhorred by Rogerenes in general—as will be
readily attested by those familiar with their principles—than any
vulgarity, or even ordinary coarseness, of speech or manner.

Miss Caulkins also states (“History of Norwich”) that John Rogers
accosted Dr. Lord (over one hundred years before) in a very loud
voice, asking him if they wore wigs in heaven, giving her story
from “tradition.” This is evidently a mixture of the Peter Pratt
court scene, and the contribution of the wig to Mr. Saltonstall.

The singularly false and indecent statements made by Peter Pratt—in
regard to the divorce of John Rogers and the marriage to Mary
Ransford—and his exaggerated description of the scene in the
court-room, form almost the entire portion of the account of the
Rogerenes contained in Trumbull’s “History of Connecticut,” which is
the standard history (first published, 1818) from which, as has been
said, later historians have derived their ideas and representations
in regard to this sect.

Of the many lesser aspersions cast by Peter Pratt upon the character
and teachings of John Rogers, one of the most astonishing (seeing
that Peter Pratt himself refutes it) is to the effect that John
Rogers held that “a man dies even as a dog.” In another place he
says John Rogers “held both to the resurrection and the day of
judgment, although doubted whether the body to be raised would be
the same that fell, yet owned it would have the same consciousness.”

The author guilty of the above (and many another)
self-contradiction, says of the writings of John Rogers: “For that
they are so perplexed and ambiguous, that he that will attend the
rules of reason and speech can prove scarcely anything of the chief
articles of his faith by his books.”

Careful perusal of the many extant writings of John Rogers will
prove to any candid person that they are written in the clearest
manner, having in them nothing which cannot be understood by the
most ordinary reader. Peter Pratt, being unable to quote from these
writings anything that could substantiate his statements concerning
them, had need to manufacture some excuse for such omission of
evidence.

It would be exceedingly difficult, if not wholly impossible, to find
another book from which historians have condescended to quote which
contains so many contradictions in itself, so many utterly and
needlessly vulgar expressions, and so many easily proven falsehoods,
as does this calumnious work of Peter Pratt. The favor it received
in ecclesiastical quarters is proof that there was almost no device,
however underhanded, of which the enemies of the Rogerenes would not
stoop to avail themselves in branding this daring opponent of
ecclesiastical rule.

Yet Peter Pratt’s baldly dishonest account is not the only source of
Rogerene calumny.

Backus, among others, in his “History of the Baptists,” makes the
statement that the Rogerenes were a sect whose practice it was to
take work into meeting-houses. The Rogerenes were a sect nearly a
century before 1764, when they first took work into a meeting-house,
and have been a sect more than one hundred years since 1766, when
they ceased to take work into a meeting-house, making in reality
less than two years, of their more than two hundred years of
existence, in which they (their women), in defence of their Society,
took work into a meeting-house.

The same historian asserts that it was their regular practice to
enter the churches and interrupt the ministers, although it would
have been evident, upon careful examination of the case, that they
never entered any church in this manner except under stress of
bitter persecution, and that, as a non-resistant people, they had in
such emergencies no other efficient means of defence.

Historians have generally stated that the Rogerenes imitated the
Quakers in dress and speech, apparently on no further evidence than
that the name of Quakers had become attached to them.

That the Rogerenes did not imitate the Quakers in speech is shown by
the testimony of those of their descendants most likely to be well
informed in regard to the early customs of their people. That they
did not imitate the Quakers in dress is proven by their inventories,
which show the usual style of dress, wherever the wardrobe is
itemized.

In the countermove of 1764-66, the men kept on their hats in the
Congregational meeting-house. John Crandall and other early members
of the First Baptist church in Newport had no affinity or sympathy
with the Quakers; yet, when attending service in a Congregational
church, they kept on their hats, in token of dissent.

Historians inform us that the Rogerenes did not employ physicians,
surgeons, or midwives, or make use of remedies in sickness,
depending wholly upon the prayer of faith. As has been fully shown,
the Rogerenes did not feel authorized to neglect any New Testament
injunction; they undoubtedly believed in healing by the prayer of
faith; yet, being a logical and discriminating people, they
perceived that the prayer of faith is often a remedy most difficult
to procure at a moment’s notice, and that other modes of relief
obtainable, in absence of this superior agency, are not to be
despised. As opposed to statements that the Rogerenes had nothing to
do with remedies, we have evidence that they were very attentive to
the sick, which presumes aid of various kinds. They appear not to
have disapproved of natural, ordinary means of restoration and
alleviation. A striking proof is furnished in the description given
by John Rogers of his illness, through cold and neglect, in the
inner prison. On this occasion, we do not find his son standing by
the prison window praying, though this son is a Rogerene of the
Rogerenes; but we find him running out into the streets, crying
loudly for help, and when help comes, in the form of hot stones,
wine and cordial, as well as speedy removal to warm quarters, there
is no indication of any lack of ready acceptance of these means of
restoration. We find afterwards a grateful acknowledgment by John
Rogers himself to Mr. Adams and wife for the wine and cordial.

Remarkable cases of divine healing appear to have occurred in this
Society at an early date. The account given of the healing of a
later day Rogerene in Quakertown (Chapter XIII) indicates that this
was a result of faith, through teachings and experiences that had
been in operation long before this man’s day, descending from the
first headers through intervening generations. The bringing of their
sick, by the Rogerenes of New Jersey, to the “holy men” from
Ephrata, to be healed, is also indicative of former experiences that
had strengthened their faith even to a point like this.

As for surgery, there is no reason to suppose that the Rogerenes did
not use the ordinary methods for a cut finger and for more serious
wounds. These people must have had broken bones, yet we hear of none
lame among them, except one who was “born lame.” They had no New
Testament directions regarding surgical cases. As for midwives, the
size of their families of children by one mother prove that,
whatever their mode, mothers and babes thrived to a very uncommon
degree. We hear nothing of the prayer of faith in such cases, except
in unauthenticated statements of “historians.” There is abundance of
traditional evidence that the Rogerenes were trained in the care of
the sick, not only that they need not call for aid from without, but
that they might assist in ministering to others.

The fact that it is appointed to all men once to die, of itself
precludes the possibility of continual and invariable healing, even
by the prayer of faith. But to suppose that such prayer is not as
efficient as human remedies, is to declare incredible certain
passages of Scripture which are as authentic as any other portion of
the New Testament. Thus reasoned the Rogerenes.

While referring to Backus, we will note a statement made by him to
the effect that some of the Rogerene youth having put an end to
their own lives, this was a cause of the decline of their Society.
Here is a curious dragon’s tooth, and it is difficult to see how it
was manufactured. Suffice it to say that, in extensive historical
and genealogical researches for the purposes of this history (and in
researches by the authors of the Rogers and the Bolles Genealogies,
both of which works largely include allied families), there has been
found but one instance of suicide among the Rogerenes, and this was
that of a young man who took his own life while under the influence
of melancholia which came upon him during a period of religious
revival. This young man was not of Rogers descent. There was,
however, in New London, at a somewhat later date, a young man of
Rogers and Rogerene descent, who became hopelessly insane. Because
of the devotion of his mother to a church in New London he was
brought up in that church. It is said that he was a very bright and
promising youth, and that no cause could be assigned to his
derangement other than excitement induced by a revival in that
church. This is mentioned to show that such instances are not
confined to any denomination.

Backus also says that “as late as 1763” some Rogerenes “clapped
shingles and pieces of wood together around the meeting-house” in
Norwich. Since he gives no authority for this statement, it is
likely to be one of the many fabrications imposed upon the public as
“history.” If any such thing occurred, it was doubtless a Rogerene
warning to that church to desist certain meddling or persecutions.
It will not only be remembered that the date given is during the
height of the persecution that induced the great countermove, but
that from the Norwich church had issued those who apprehended and
scourged the party of Rogerenes on their way to Lebanon.[188] Mr.
Backus, with the real or assumed lack of perception common to
ecclesiastical historians when treating upon the Rogerenes, adds
that “the rulers having learned so much wisdom as only to remove
these people from disturbing others, without fines or corporeal
punishment,” they had ceased from such things in a great measure. It
would have been contrary to the inclination of such writers to
perceive that the Rogerenes disturbed no one but in defense of the
truth for which they stood, and that when persecution on account of
their own religion ceased, they had no further need to disturb the
religious observances of others.

Footnote 188:

J. Backus, the justice who apprehended and scourged the Lebanon
party in 1725, appears to have been grandfather of the historian
of the Baptists.

Barber, in his “Historical Collections of New Jersey,” states that
there is a tradition to the effect that, about eighty years before
the date of the writing (which would give us the date of the great
countermove at New London), some of the Rogerenes of Schooley’s
Mountain came into a neighboring meeting-house, bringing work and
interrupting the minister. The latter statement is couched in the
very words used by Miss Caulkins concerning the New London
countermove of 1764-66, indicating the exact origin of this New
Jersey “tradition,” which is simply in line with the erroneous
accounts of historians in general—derived from repetitions and
alterations of statements concerning the New London movement—which
represent the Rogerenes as always and everywhere taking work into
meeting-houses and interrupting the ministers.

Could any such disturbance be proven in regard to the Rogerenes of
New Jersey, it would show—as a known effect of a certain cause—that
they had been subjected to unbearable annoyances from members of
that church, on account of their own religious persuasion, and took
that method to check their enemies. But no proof of any such New
Jersey molestation or defense has been presented.

Rev. Mr. Field, in his “Bi-centennial Discourse,” says the Rogerenes
did not believe in the Sabbath “nor in public worship,” whereas,
from the first they held as regular public meetings as any of their
neighbors. Their meetings were open to friends and enemies alike,
even to Mr. Saltonstall and his fellow-conspirators. They had,
moreover, a regular organization with record books and clerk, proof
of which is still extant in Quakertown, by a book of records written
by said clerk. This erroneous statement regarding public meetings is
doubtless derived from the fact that the Rogerenes, in opposition to
the ecclesiastical law against meetings in private houses, persisted
in holding meetings in such houses, and also to the fact that the
Rogerenes held evening meetings for prayer, praise, and testimony,
which were particularly for believers.[189]

Footnote 189:

At that date the Congregationalists did not hold prayer-meetings,
or any evening services. They had, however, a religious “lecture”
on Friday afternoons.

There remain but two more principal fangs to be dealt with. One of
these is a fossil which was recently revived by Mr. Blake, minister
of the “First Church of Christ, of New London;” while the other is
quite a new production, which the same estimable gentleman himself
manufactured and circulated, through a natural desire not to be
behind other ministers and historians of that church, in endeavoring
to perpetuate the odium cast upon those who are reputed to have
suffered strange things from some of its members in times past.

The first of these statements is that it was the custom of the
Rogerenes to marry without a lawful ceremony, upon which Mr. Blake
undertakes to give a description of their manner of marrying, which
description is modelled after a familiar anecdote,—combined with a
current statement founded on the same anecdote, to the effect that
the marriage of John Rogers to Mary Ransford was a ceremony invented
for the Rogerene sect by its leader, regardless of the known fact
(“History of New London”) that upon his third marriage the
intentions were regularly published in New London and the ceremony
performed by a justice in Rhode Island. It may be seen by New London
records that his son John, two years after the death of his father,
was married by the Rev. Mr. Woodbridge, pastor of the Congregational
church of Groton. Mr. John Bolles, the noted Rogerene leader, was
married to his second wife, in 1736, by Mr. Joshua Hempstead,
justice of the peace, John Rogers, 2d, taking Mr. Hempstead and Mr.
Bolles over the river for that purpose. (“Hempstead Diary.”)

The New London town and church records and the “Hempstead Diary”
bear full evidence that the Rogerenes of New London were married by
the regular ministers or by justices of the peace, after a regular
publication.

At a comparatively late date it appears that some of the Rogerenes
prefer to have their marriages solemnized in their own public
religious meetings on Sunday, in Quaker fashion, a form allowable by
law, under condition that the marriage intentions be regularly
published. The first marriage of this kind which has been discovered
was recorded in 1764, by Joseph Bolles, clerk of the Rogerene
Society, in a church book.

By the will of Joseph Bolles (1785), it is shown that he left a
chest of Rogerene books and papers to Timothy Waterhouse of Groton.
The latter probably succeeded Joseph Bolles as clerk of the Society;
hence a remnant of this church book is in the Watrous family, and
from it was copied the following:—

At our public meeting in New London the 17th of the 6th month,
1764, Joseph Bolles was appointed clerk for our Society, to write,
etc.

* * * * *

This may certify all persons whom it may concern, that I, Timothy
Walterhouse[190], do take thee, Content Whipple, to be my lawful,
wedded wife, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in
sickness and in health, and I promise to perform to thee all the
duties of a husband according to the Scriptures, while death shall
separate us.

And I, Content Whipple, do take thee, Timothy Walterhouse, to be
my lawful, wedded husband, for better or for worse, for richer or
for poorer, in sickness and in health, and I promise to perform to
thee all the duties of a wife according to the Scriptures, while
death shall separate us.

TIMOTHY WALTERHOUSE.
CONTENT WALTERHOUSE.

The above named couple have been lawfully published, and now at
our public meeting in New London, the seventeenth day of the sixth
month, 1764, they both acknowledged and signed this paper, after
they heard it read. Thus they are man and wife, married, according
to the laws of God, in our presence.

JOHN WALTERHOUSE.
JOSEPH BOLLES.
SAMUEL ROGERS.
JOHN ROGERS (3d).

Among the various marriages in this church book are two well-known
New London Rogerenes,—Thomas Turner and Enoch Bolles (son of John).
Both of these are second marriages and the brides of Quakertown
affinity, one of them (bride of Thomas Turner) being widow of John
Waterhouse, 2d. John Waterhouse, 2d, lived in New London at, or
near, Quaker Hill.

Footnote 190:

The original name appears to have been Walterhouse, contracted
first to Waterhouse and then to Watrous.

By 1811, we find the paper to be signed reading as follows:—

GROTON, _August 4, 1811._

These lines certify all people whom they may concern that I,
William Waterous, and I, Clarissa Cushman, both of said Groton,
are joined together in a lawful covenant of marriage, not to be
separated until God who hath joined us together shall separate us
by death, and furthermore it is enjoined on us that we perform the
duty due to each other as the Scripture doth teach.

WILLIAM WATROUS.
CLARISSA WATEROUS.

_In presence of_

AMOS WATERHOUSE.
SAMUEL CHAPMAN.

Copies of these and other records were furnished us by Mr. Jabez
Watrous of Quakertown.

These marriages were, with the exceptions noted, of Rogerenes on the
Groton side, although the public meetings in which the earlier ones
were solemnized were held in New London, and most of the witnesses
were of New London. The New London Rogerenes continued to be married
by regular ministers or justices of the peace. Thus early, we find
an exclusiveness on the part of the Groton Rogerenes not
discoverable among those of New London. Yet all of the Rogerenes
considered marriage a strictly religious ceremony, consisting of
vows taken before God and not to be annulled save for the one cause
stated in the New Testament, while all know for how comparatively
slight causes marriages in other denominations have been set aside.
By the Quakertown method, the parties took each other for husband
and wife in the presence of their “elder” and the assembled
congregation; the elder did not pronounce them man and wife, they
having taken each other before God; but the marriage was recorded in
the church book, with names of several witnesses attached. We find
certificates of these marriages both on the New London and Groton
town records, further showing their legal character. Among them the
following:—

GROTON, _July 29, 1821_.

Personally appeared John Crouch and Rachel Watrous, both of
Groton, and were married in presence of me

ZEPHANIA WATROUS.

Where the antique marriage anecdote to which reference has been made
originated, or to what persons it was first applied, is a matter of
uncertainty; but, as it has frequently been attached to others
besides Rogerenes, it is likely to have originated in quite
different quarters. It appears to have become attached to the
Rogerenes through the fallacious notions previously mentioned. Even
the talented and scholarly author of the Bolles Genealogy (Gen. J.
A. Bolles) was misled by this anecdote, together with the current
statement in regard to lack of marriage ceremony among the
Rogerenes, and also by his failure to find a record of the marriage
of Joseph Bolles.[191]

Footnote 191:

Mr. Bolles also said that he could not find a record of the birth
or marriage of Joseph Bolles, Jr., on the town records, but we had
no difficulty in finding both of the latter upon those records;
and by close study of the New London records, we can affirm that
no families of New London were better represented by careful entry
of family records than were the Rogerenes, especially the Rogers
and Bolles families.

The following clause in the deed by which John Rogers, 2d, set
apart a burying-place for his descendants of itself sufficiently
indicates the attitude of the Rogerenes regarding the sanctity and
legal form of marriage:—

“I do give, grant, convey and confirm unto them my afores^d Sons
and to all the Children that are or may be born unto my afores^d
Sons or either of them _in Wedlock lawfully begotten_,” etc.

The most careful research and inquiry have failed to discover a
single child born out of wedlock in this Society during the
hundred years of its distinct existence. Joseph Bolles shows that
there were some candid people among their enemies in his day, when
he says: “Also the observers of this pretended Sabbath do allow
that there is more immorality amongst themselves than there is
among us who do not observe it.”

Marriage publications were not entered upon New London records; but
the publication of Joseph Bolles and Martha Lewis, in the
Congregational church, in 1731, is plainly recorded in the
“Hempstead Diary.” Mr. J. A. Bolles had no knowledge of the
existence of this Diary.

The anecdote which Mr. J. A. Bolles judged too good to be spoiled
for the sake of relationship, yet of which he said: “The story has
been told of so many that I doubt its authenticity,” has had so many
versions, even as attached to the Rogerenes, that it cannot well be
presented in this connection without laying before the reader
several of the Rogerene versions that have become current. Space is
given for these the more readily, because this is a good
illustration of the scurrilous stories that have been told regarding
this greatly abused sect.

ANECDOTE.

_Version No. I._ (_From the Half-Century Sermon of Rev. Abel M.
McEwen, 1857._)

Among the idols which it was the mission of these fanatics to
demolish, was the Congregational ceremony of marriage. One of
their sturdy zealots, a widower of middle age, announced his
intention to take for his wife, without any formality of marriage,
a widow in the neighborhood. Mr. Saltonstall remonstrated against
the design of the man, but he stoutly maintained and declared his
purpose. The clergyman, seeing him enter the house of his
intended, also went in that he might see them together. “You,
sir,” said he to the man, “will not disgrace yourself and the
neighborhood by taking this woman for your wife without marriage?”
“Yes,” he replied, “I will.” “But you, madam,” said the wily
watchman, “will not consent to become his wife in this improper
manner?” “Yes,” said she, “I do.” “Then,” said he, “I pronounce
you husband and wife; and I shall record your marriage in the
records of the church.”

The marriage records of the Congregational church, all of which are
extant, give no record of any such Rogerene widower and widow. Any
marriage of an irregular nature in those times, and to a much later
date, would have been proven until this day by record of presentment
at the County Court of the woman upon the birth of every child, with
attendant fine or whipping. Since not a single such presentment in
the case of a Rogerene (with the exception of Mary Ransford) is to
be found on the court records, the opening statement of Mr. McEwen
is even by that one evidence disproved.

_Version No. II._ (_From Bi-Centennial Discourse (1870) by Rev.
Mr. Field, successor to Mr. McEwen._)

Mr. Field tells above story in substantially the same manner, but
causes the Rogerene to say, at the close: “Ah, Gurdon, thou art a
cunning creature!” Mr. Field adds, in a footnote to the printed
Discourse, that “there can be no authority for the story except
tradition,” but that it bears “so many marks of probability that
there can be no reason to doubt its correctness.” Doubtless it was
such “marks of probability” that induced Mr. Field to credit the
story that the Rogerenes entered the churches unclothed, which he
incorporated among the various erroneous statements relating to
these people contained in this Discourse, although he had abundant
means of knowing of its absence from all New London history or
tradition.

_Version No. III._ (_From Bolles Genealogy, 1865—concerning Joseph
Bolles, son of John Bolles, proof of whose marriage has been
given._)

There is a tradition in the family that Governor Saltonstall, who
had a high regard for Mr. and Mrs. Bolles, contrived to marry them
without their suspecting it. It is said that after Mr. and Mrs.
Bolles had had one or two children, and been threatened by “some
rude fellows of the baser sort” with prosecution, the Governor one
day invited himself to dine with friends Joseph and Martha. As the
dinner went on, friend Gurdon, in easy conversation, very adroitly
led both Mr. and Mrs. Bolles severally to declare that they had
taken each other as man and wife in a lifelong union, and regarded
themselves bound by the marriage covenant before God and man. As
Mrs. Bolles assented to her husband’s declaration, with her
smiling “Yea, yea,” the Governor rose to his feet and spreading
out his hands exclaimed: “By virtue of my office as civil
magistrate, and as a minister of God, I declare you lawful husband
and wife.” “Ah, Gurdon,” said Joseph, “thou art a cunning
creature!”

It is strange that so intellectual and scholarly a man as Mr. John
A. Bolles did not perceive that the best part of this joke was in
the extreme friendship displayed between the ardent Rogerene leader,
Joseph Bolles, and Governor Saltonstall, as well as in the fact that
the governor must have risen from the dead to marry Joseph Bolles,
the marriage of the latter having occurred seven years after the
death of Governor Saltonstall; also that had there been a child born
to such a couple in those days, no “fellows of the baser sort” of
any less consequence than the regular town authorities would have
needed to take them in hand.

_Version No. IV._ (_From an article regarding the Rogerenes, by a
talented historian of New London of the present date, which was
published several years since in a New York paper._)

There was incessant war between John Rogers and the town because
his wife had been divorced from him. Though she was twice married,
he attempted to capture her by force, but finally married himself
to his bond-servant Mary Ransford. This scandalized the community,
and the pair were hauled before the several courts. No persuasion
would induce them to be legally united, and almost in despair
Gurdon Saltonstall, then minister, sent for the pair. “Do you
really, John,” said he, “take this woman, your bond-servant,
bought with your money, for your wife?”

“Yes,” said Rogers defiantly, “I do.”

“Is it possible, Mary, that you take this man, so much older than
yourself, for your husband?”

“Yes,” said she doggedly, “I do.”

“Then,” said the minister solemnly, “I pronounce you, according to
the law of this colony, man and wife.”

“Ah, Gurdon,” said Rogers, “thou art a cunning creature!”

Had this historian never read the famous history of the place in
which she dwells, written by Miss Caulkins, wherein is proof
absolute that John Rogers and Mary Ransford had not the honor of
being married by Governor Saltonstall? Although Miss Caulkins
herself gives a version of this story (History of New London), she
calls attention to the fact that it could not be true, as proven by
court records.

_Version No. V._ (_In one of the editions of Barber’s “Historical
Collections of Connecticut.”_)

It is here stated that “one day as Gov. Saltonstall was sitting in
his room, smoking his pipe,” a man by the name of Gorton came in
with a woman, and announced that he had taken her for his wife
without any ceremony, upon which the governor, “taking his pipe
from his mouth,” went through the usual form in these anecdotes,
whereupon Gorton exclaimed: “Thou art a cunning creature!” Barber
gives this anecdote among his various false statements regarding
the Rogerenes.

_Version No. VI._ (_A solitary anecdote found in the Chicago
Tribune of April, 1897, showing how dragon’s teeth will spring up
again and again, in one form or another._)

Alexander Bolles, one of the early itinerant preachers, who
preached in three States among the Alleghany Mountains, says the
_Argonaut_, was much tormented by the influence of one John
Rogers, a Jerseyman, who openly taught atheism and the abolishment
of marriage. On one occasion, while holding a meeting in the woods
of Virginia, a young man and woman pushed their way up to the
stump which served as a pulpit. The man, interrupting the sermon
[of course], said defiantly:—

“I’d like you to know that we are Rogerenes.” The old man looked
at him over his spectacles and waited. “We don’t believe in God,
nor in marriage. This is my wife because I choose her to be; but
I’ll have no preacher nor squire meddling with us.”

“Do you mean to tell me,” thundered Father Bolles, “that you have
taken this girl home as your wife?”

“Yes, I do,” said the fellow doggedly.

“And have you gone willingly to live with him as your husband?”

“Yes,” said the frightened girl.

“Then I pronounce you man and wife, and whom God hath joined
together let no man put asunder. Be off with you. You are married
now according to the law and the gospel.”

This rehash of several aspersions, spiced by newspaper humor, has,
as is perceived, for the best part of its joke (to those better
informed than its writer) several amusing paradoxes; viz., that the
opposing preacher should bear the name of _Bolles_; that John
Rogers, instead of dying in New London a so-called religious
fanatic, had a Rip Van Winkle sleep in New Jersey where he awoke an
atheist and at the same time a Rogerene.

The dragon’s tooth which Mr. Blake appears to have manufactured
himself, with no assistance whatever, for his “History of the First
Church of Christ, of New London,” is of a more serious character
than even such anecdotes as these. This new production is to the
effect that the General Court (1684) granted Matthew Griswold and
his daughter Elizabeth further guardianship of John Rogers, Jr., “on
account Of the continuance of his father in _immoral practices_.”

The manner in which Mr. Blake so easily manufactured a statement
never before made by any historian in regard to John Rogers, is by
having (doubtless inadvertently) placed together as contexts two
court records which have no relation to each other. The continuance
of John Rogers, Jr., in the custody of Matthew Griswold and
Elizabeth, granted in 1784, because John Rogers was “continuing in
his evil practices,” etc., referred, as observed by previous
historians, to the giving the two children into the mother’s charge
in 1677, on account (as distinctly stated in the records) of John
Rogers “being so hettridox in his opinion and practice,” even to
breaking the holy Sabbath, etc. Mr. Blake went back of this the true
context, to the alleged cause of the divorce suit in 1675, which
cause was not so much as referred to by the court when the children
were assigned to the care of the mother and grandfather, which
assignment was wholly on the ground of the father’s “hettridoxy.” To
have given the children to the care of the mother and grandfather on
account of a charge against John Rogers of which he had been
acquitted by the grand jury, would have been an impossible
proceeding. His transgression of the ecclesiastical laws and usages
were “evil practices” to the view of Matthew Griswold, Elizabeth,
and the General Court.

There has now been demonstrated the unreliable character of the main
charges that have been brought against John Rogers and the
Rogerenes, to be repeated by succeeding “historians” and added to
not infrequently, through prejudice, humor, or lack of examination
into the facts. It is trusted that the evidence given in this
present work will sufficiently prove it the result of painstaking
research and studious investigation, with no worse bias than that in
favor of the undoing of falsehood and misapprehension and the
righting of grievous wrongs.

Is it too much to ask that every person who presents so-called
history to the public shall be expected to present as clear evidence
in support of his statements and assertions, as is demanded of a
witness in a court-room, or forfeit the reputation of a reliable
author? Only by such reasonable demand, on the part of readers, can
past history be sifted of its chaff and future history deserve the
name.

Times have changed since John Rogers, Jr., went “up and down the
colony” selling his little book; but a public at large, to which
this youth trusted for a fair hearing and for sympathy, still
exists,—a public which, as a whole, is never deaf to a call for
justice. In the hands of this court, of highest as of safest appeal,
is left the “HISTORY OF THE ROGERENES.”

APPENDIX.

EXTRACTS FROM “EPISTLES.”

JOHN ROGERS, SR.

_Christian Reader_:—

I direct this my book to thee, without any regard to one sect more
than another, for the unity and fellowship of God’s people is
Love, and this Love is the bond of perfectness, and by this Love
shall all men know that we are Christ’s disciples; and if this
Love be with us and dwell in us, by it we shall know that we are
translated from death unto life; for that faith that purifies the
soul works by this Love, and by this faith which works by Love we
come to have the victory over the world.

Beloved brethren, Since that great apostacy hath been, which the
holy apostles did in their day fore-tell of, which hath spread
over nations and kingdoms, so that the very names of things in
scripture hath been (and in many things yet are) wrongly applied
and generally believed to be that which they are not; and those
false customs which this great apostacy hath brought in hath been
received (and yet are in many things) for truths; but God hath in
these latter ages raised up such lights in the world at several
times as hath discovered much of the great mystery of iniquity;
but they have always been accounted (at their first appearing) as
deceivers and seducers and the like, by the dark world in general,
and met with great opposition from the powers of this world, even
from the powers of darkness; but the God with whom all power is
hath so borne them up, through their faith, that the gates of hell
were not able to withstand them, nor all the powers of darkness
able to gainsay them, so that Satan hath been forced to fit up a
new form of pretended holiness to deceive the world with, at
several times, yea, even at every such appearance of the light of
the gospel; for so often as the Lord hath been pleased to reveal
unto his Church the life and light of the gospel, by shining into
the hearts of his children, so often hath there been a falling
away, and that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which
deceiveth the whole world, hath at such times endeavored to work
in the hearts of governors and great men of the earth to set up
that which they imagine to be the worship of God, and to maintain
the same, and this hath ever been a snare and net whereby God’s
children have been ensnared and hypocrites set up; for the true
worship of God is in righteousness and true holiness in the inner
man, and none can thus worship God till he sets them free from the
Egypt of sin, and works this righteousness in their own hearts by
his own Spirit; and such as these cannot conform to any prescribed
form set up by the powers of darkness of this world, without
procuring the great displeasure of God; for they are to be God’s
witnesses of that worship which God hath set up in the hearts of
his own children, who alone can worship God in spirit and in
truth, and none else; and these are the light of the world, and
yet are but strangers and pilgrims in the world; for their kingdom
is not of this world. But those that fall away from the spirit of
truth into the spirit of the world are the false prophets and
antichrists, and these are they whom the world doth follow and
close with, according to scripture testimony; for saith the
scripture, They are of the world, and the world heareth them; he
that is not of God heareth not us; by this we know, the spirit of
truth and the spirit of error. Here is a plain description laid
down for us to know the false prophets by, to wit, “for the world
heareth them”; by this we know they are always the greatest
number, because the body of the people will hear and speak well of
them; but the world will not hear and speak well of the true,
saith the scripture; and this is the description the scripture
gives us to know them by. I John 4, 5, 6. Luke 6, 26. Mat. 5, 11,
12.

* * * * *

What I have written in this book to the churches of Christ called
Quakers I did present to the ministry of the said people in the
time of a general meeting at Rhode Island, desiring of them it
might be read to the congregation at the said meeting, and so
handed among them till it come to Wm. Penn and the rest of their
ministry. But after the ministry had perused it, some of them told
me that I knew they did look at water baptism useless after a
person came to be baptised with the Spirit. To which I replied,
Your argument is just contrary to the scripture; for said Peter,
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised which
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them
to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Acts 10, 47, 48. Another
replied, saying, “Thou holds forth the light contrary to what we
have done, both in our public testimonies and printed books.” To
which I answered, “If you can shew me wherein I have held it forth
contrary to the holy Scriptures, it shall be rectified:” But I
heard no further reply to that. I then told them that if they
would be pleased to publish it among themselves, I should be
satisfied, and proceed no further with it, otherwise my purpose
was to print it. Whereupon, some of them asked me whether I would
be satisfied if they read it in their private meeting. I told them
Yes; for I directed it to them and not to the world. Upon which
they appointed me to come to the same place the next morning at
seven of the clock for an answer; accordingly I did, where my book
was returned to me again, some saying “It holds forth things
contrary to what we have done, both in our public testimonies and
printed books, and may make a division among us.” To which I
answered, “If truth make a division among you, it is such a
division as Christ came to make.” But they thus refusing to
publish it among themselves, I have thought it my duty to put it
to public view, believing there is yet a remnant among them which
have not defiled their garments.

I have also added something more at the end of that epistle which
I presented to them, to show the difference between the
ministration of the moral law (written in the hearts of all the
children of Adam) and of the ministration of the gospel of Jesus
Christ (written on the hearts of God’s children by the spirit of
the living God) the one being the light of condemnation, the other
being the light of life, or the light of our justification,
through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, and both proceeding
from the self-same God.

* * * * *

And as to what I have written to the observers of the Seventh Day
Sabbath, these may certify thee that after it pleased God, through
his rich grace in Christ Jesus, to take away the guilt of my sins
from my conscience and to send the spirit of his Son into my
heart, whereby he did reveal unto me his love and his acceptance
of me in Jesus Christ, this unspeakable mercy did greatly engage
my heart to love God and diligently to search the Scriptures, that
thereby I might know how to serve God acceptably, for then I soon
became a seeker how to worship God, though more zealous of the
tradition of my fathers till I saw them to be traditions and no
scripture precepts. I thus, upon diligent search of the
Scriptures, found that the First-day Sabbath was nowhere commanded
by any law of God, and the Scriptures telling me where no law is
there can be no transgression, and that it is but vain to worship
God by men’s traditions, Mat. 15, 9, and also finding by Scripture
that there was a commandment for the keeping of the seventh day, I
then openly labored on the first day of the week, in faithfulness
to God and my fellow creatures, and strictly kept the fourth
commandment, which commanded labor on the first day of the week,
and required rest on the seventh. But I continuing a diligent
searcher of the holy Scriptures, and begging at the Throne of
Grace for direction in the way of truth, it pleased God to open my
understanding to understand the Scriptures and to see that the
seventh day sabbath was but a sign (under the law) of a gospel
rest that Christ gives the soul, and that the shadowing part of
the law was nailed to the cross of Christ; I could then no longer
observe the seventh day without defiling my conscience; for saith
Christ, Mat. 10, 27: “What I tell you in darkness that speak ye in
light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the
housetops.” I then wrote to those of my brethren that kept the
seventh day sabbath, showing them how it was but a sign or shadow
of a better thing that was to come by Jesus Christ, and since have
writ this following Epistle to them, wherein is opened the
covenant of the law and the covenant of grace, the first covenant
being a figure of the second; which covenant, with all the rites
and ceremonies of it, continued until the establishment of the new
testament by the blood of Jesus Christ; which testament contains
the substance of those things shadowed out in the first covenant;
and though the shadowing part of the law was nailed to the cross
of Christ, and so ceased, as they were signs and shadows, yet it
is as easy for heaven and earth to pass as it is for one tittle
(of what was shadowed out by the law) to escape of being fulfilled
by Christ in the substance of it; for what God had before
determined should be fulfilled by Christ was prophesied of by the
law, as well as by the prophets, as is to be seen, Mat. 2, 13. But
John the Baptist came so near to him that he pointed at him
saying, Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the
world.

I have thought it my duty to put these things to public view,
being sensible of the wiles of Satan, who is wont to work in the
darkness of men, to mislead them to make idols of such things
which God commanded to be observed as signs of instructions to his
church as is to be seen, Numb. 21, 9, compared with II Kings 18,
4, and what it was a sign of is to be seen, John 3, 14, 15.

Then follows the Epistle to the Quakers and that to the Seventh Day
Baptists.

EXTRACTS FROM “TWO MINISTRATIONS.”

JOHN ROGERS, SR.

... But before he came into the world, those that were under the
second ministration were led and taught by a shadowing law, and
were under typical judges, kings and priests, who were types of
Christ’s kingly, prophetical and priestly offices; but since his
coming in the flesh, they have ceased, and He himself is their
alone King, Priest and Prophet, to rule and teach them, in a more
evangelical or gospel way; and this was prophesied of before his
coming into the world, Deut. 18, 15, Isa. 7, 6, Psal. 110, 4. Thus
was He prophesied of before his coming in the flesh, to wit in his
prophetical, kingly and priestly offices; but He being now already
come, we are to hear Him in all things, and to follow Him in all
exemplary things, and He alone is to rule in his church, being
their King, Priest and Prophet.

... And although we are of another kingdom, and therefore are not
to be concerned in the kingdom we do not belong to, either to sit
in judgment with them, or to fight and kill under their kingdom,
yet, as being in their country and limits, rather than to offend
them we have liberty from our King to pay them tribute for the
carrying on the affairs of their kingdom and government, both by
his doctrine and example, Rom. 13, 6, 7 etc., Mat. 17, 24 etc....
But although the children of God are free, being of another
kingdom, yet they are not to use their liberty for a cloak of
maliciousness against them, but as they are the servants of God,
and proper subjects of his kingdom, they are to honour all men,
and to fear God and to honour the king, and to make conscience, as
Christ did, not to offend them, but rather to give them their
demand for carrying on their affairs in their own kingdom, ...

Can it stand with Christianity, according to Christ’s doctrine and
example since He came into the world, for his church and people to
join in with the powers of this world to resist evil, by judging
and condemning sinners, and to destroy men’s lives, by fighting
against flesh and blood with carnal weapons; or to lord it over
others by exercising authority over them, as the kings and judges
of this world do?

No: for both his doctrine and example forbid his church all such
things, as appeareth by these following Scriptures, ... And thus
are we to be followers of Him, and not to take the place of a
judge upon us, from the hands of the children of this world, and
to follow them in their kingdom, to sit with them in judgment, to
judge and condemn sinners, whom Christ did not come to judge, or
to condemn, but to save. And also seeing He who was without sin
hath not executed justice upon us who were sinners, but hath
extended his grace and mercy to us, in acquitting and forgiving
us, so ought we to be followers of Him, and not now become judges
and condemners of sinners, seeing he hath not judged nor condemned
us for our sins. And seeing he who was without sin did not cast a
stone at the woman taken in adultery, who was a sinner, so
likewise let us, who were once sinners, learn of him to be
merciful unto sinners, as he hath been merciful unto us, who came
not to destroy men’s lives but to save them....

... But Christ’s doctrine doth not give his disciples so much
liberty as to defend themselves by the law of justice from the
hands of earthly judges, Mat. 5, 38 etc. “Ye have heard that it
hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’; but I
say unto you that ye resist not evil, etc,” “And if any man will
sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy
cloak also, etc.”... We are to love our enemies, and to bless them
that curse us and to do good to them that hate us, and to pray for
them that despitefully use us and persecute us, Mat. 5, 44, and to
do violence to no man, and to live peaceably with all men, as much
as in us lies, by suffering ourselves to be defrauded, Rom. 12,
18. I Cor. 6, 7.

Thus we may see, by the doctrine and example of Christ, that it
cannot stand with perfect Christianity to be either governor,
judge, executioner or jury man, or to be active in the making any
laws which may be useful in the body of the kingdoms of this
world, who are only under the ministration of the moral law, and
their weapons are carnal, with which weapons they fight against
flesh and blood only, punishing both the righteous and the wicked,
according to what is written, “And he was numbered with the
transgressors” (by the judges of this world) Mark 15, 28.

... And this His kingdom and peaceable government was before
prophesied of, and how he should put an end to wars, and reconcile
sinners to his church, ...

... Then said Jesus unto him, “Put up again thy sword into his
place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword.” Matt. 26, 52. “He that leadeth into captivity shall go
into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with
the sword.” Rev. 13, 10. Here He rebuketh the use of the sword,
according to what was before prophesied of him, threatening them
that use it to measure the same measure to them.... From hence it
appears plainly that the very reason why Christ bid them provide
swords was that He might fulfil those prophesies which prophesied
of him beforehand; that He should rebuke the use of the sword when
he should come, and cause them to beat their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and that they
should learn war no more. For when they told Him there were two
swords, He said, “It is enough;” but when they came to make use of
them, he rebuked the use of them, saying, “Put up again thy sword
into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with
the sword.” So that it appears he did not bid them provide swords
to kill and slay with them, but put an end to the use of them in
his church....

We thus seeing that Christ hath rebuked the use of the sword in
his church, and that they are to learn war no more, but are to
beat their swords into useful tools, for necessary uses, it is an
evil thing for a Christian to practice any gesture that tendeth to
war, as watching, warding or training, or exercising any posture
leading to war; for it is some degree of contempt to the doctrine
of Christ, who hath taught us to learn war no more, but to live
the life of faith and love, who hath promised us his protection
and preservation from famine, pestilence and sword, when we love
him and keep his commandments, as throughout the 91st psalm, Job
5, 19, 20. Isa. 26, 1, 2, 3, 4. Rev. 3, 10.

... But forasmuch as we have obtained mercy and grace by Jesus
Christ, and are thereby reconciled to God, and made heirs of a
better kingdom, and are but strangers, pilgrims and sojourners
here, we are not to mix ourselves with the children of this world,
by joining with them in their kingdom, to judge, or condemn, or
torture any man for his sin, seeing we are under another
ministration, having not been condemned by Christ for our sins;
neither are we to join with them to kill or slay our fellow
creatures, seeing Christ hath rebuked the use of the sword in the
hands of his followers; and except we deny ourselves in all these
things, and take up our cross and follow him, we cannot be his
disciples....

CONCERNING THE SABBATH.

_Extracts from a Reply by John Rogers, Sr. (1721), to a Book by
Benj. Wadsworth, entitled “The Lord’s Day Proved to be the
Christian Sabbath.”_

... When God’s children were in a holy frame and agreed to fast
and pray, they did it not with a mixt multitude in public
assemblies, as hypocrites are wont to do; as appears Neh. 9, 1, 2.
The children of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, in
time of offering up their prayers unto God. Acts 1, 13, 14. And we
nowhere read, throughout the whole Bible that God’s children ever
prayed in a public assembly, with a mixt multitude, and in a
customary way, as hypocrites are wont to do, as throughout the
whole scripture doth appear. Rom. 8, 26.

... This have I written that people may not be misled, by thinking
they worship God in forms and set times of prayer, while they are
in a state of sin; and that they may consider the publican, upon
his first prayer, accompanied with true repentance, went away
justified rather than the other that was zealous in his often
fasting and prayers....

In page 5th sayth he: “The apostle doth not oppose the keeping one
day in a week holy to God.” To which I answer, It is not what the
apostle doth not oppose, but what the apostle commands, I Pet. 1,
16, “Be ye holy for I am holy.” An unholy man cannot do one holy
act, no more than a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit: but I
have no where read in the books of the New Testament that we are
commanded to keep one day more holy than another....

... And the next place, I shall shew that the first commandment
that both the angel of God and Christ himself gave forth to his
apostles was to make the first day of the week (the day of his
resurrection) a day of labor by travelling out of one province
into another.... Thus it appears that had they believed them that
was sent by the angel of God and by Christ himself they should
have set out on their journey early in the morning for Galilee,
which was in another province, and by all probability more than
one day’s journey, as appears in the 2nd chapter of Luke, which
shews that Christ’s parents went a day’s journey towards Galilee
before they missed him.... So that it appears that Christ had no
regard to the day, otherwise than to make it a day of labor ...
through their unbelief they were disobedient to the message that
Christ sent them and did not make it a day of labor by travelling,
as they were required by the angel of God and by Christ himself;
which journey according to history was above 40 miles and the
message was sent them in haste, to set out upon this journey, upon
the first day of the week, the day of Christ’s resurrection.

In page 6th he quotes Gen. 2, 2, 3, which speaks only of God’s
resting from the works of creation, when all things were finished
and “was very good” ... and this God’s Sabbath or rest from his
works of creation had no evening or morning ascribed to it,
because it was his eternal rest or Sabbath, all things being now
finished. And it could be no Sabbath or rest to Adam, for he had
done no work to rest from, for he was the finishing work, ... So
that Adam in his first creation entered into God’s Sabbath and so
continued, till he by sin brought labor upon himself ... and we
have no account in Scripture of any Sabbath commanded or kept from
Adam till Mose’s time, ... For when God delivered the two tables
of the ten commandments, he gave Moses a particular account about
the seventh-day sabbath, how it was a sign, as is seen Exod. 31,
12 etc. compared with the last verse.... And a sign is not the
thing signified by it, any more than a shadow of a thing is the
substance....

In page 19 he quotes ... “I was in spirit on the Lord’s day.”...
that is, I was spiritualized on the Lord’s day of his revelation
for that work he employed me in, but here is no account what day
or days it was of the week or month, this God hath not revealed to
us.... But for any to affect it to be on a first day of the week
is presumption, seeing no such name in Scripture was imposed on
the first day of the week in any other place of the Scripture....

In page 27, he quotes Acts 20, 7, “And upon the first day of the
week” ... This text tells us the disciple’s coming together was to
break bread; it does not say to celebrate a Sabbath, or give the
day any pre-eminence above the five other working days ... the
word breaking of bread is used in common eating, Acts 2,
46.—“breaking bread from house to house,”—Christ brake bread to
two of his disciples and also when Christ fed 5000.... And in this
place it is said they came together to break bread, and Paul was
at that time tending a ship, as appears....

But as to the Lord’s Supper, it was always attended at supper
time, ... It was first instituted by Christ at supper ... And
Paul, the Gentile apostle, hath left it on record that he did
deliver it to the Gentiles to be attended in the night, as appears
I Cor. 11, 23.... The Gentile churches attended the time and
season, tho’ they got into a disorderly way of partaking of it,
yet they attended the season ... “For in eating every one taketh
before other his own supper.”... So that we see this coming
together to break bread, on the first day of the week, was not for
preaching (but a feast of charity), for that was attended the
night following (when the young man fell from the loft), nor for
the Lord’s supper.

The following is at the end of the book containing the answer to
Benjamin Wadsworth. The “questions” were written in New London
prison at the time John Rogers was confined there on account of
troubles arising out of the arrest and imprisonment of Sarah Bolles
for a “matter of conscience.”

The following questions were presented as they are underwritten,
but when I saw I could obtain no answer but persecution, I then
presented them to a Superior Court in the colony New London, and
from them to the next General Court in that Colony, and so to the
Elders and Messengers of the churches of the Colony of
Connecticut, requesting of them an answer, upon the consideration
of the Confession of their own Faith and the good counsels there
given, and printed in New London, in the year 1710. And here
follows an account of some part of what I presented to them, taken
out of the Confession of their own Faith.

In page 6. “First Counsel. That you be immovably and unchangeably
agreed in the only sufficient and invariable rule of religion,
which is the Holy Scriptures, the fixed canon, uncapable of
addition and diminution. You ought to account nothing ancient that
will not stand by this rule, nor anything new that will. Do not
hold yourselves bound to unscriptural rites in religion, wherein
custom itself doth many times misguide. Isai. 8, 20. To the law
and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it
is because there is no light in them.”

“Second Counsel. That you be determined by this rule in the whole
of religion. That your faith be right and divine, that the Word of
God must be the foundation of it and the authority of the Word the
reason of it, etc. For an orthodox Christian to resolve his faith
into education, instruction and the persuasion of others, is not
an higher reason than a Papist, Mahometan or Pagan can produce for
his religion.”

Page 7. “Believe, in all divine worship, it is not enough that
this or that act of worship is not forbidden in the word of God;
if it be not commanded, and you perform it, you may fear you will
be found guilty and be exposed to divine displeasure. Nadab and
Abihu paid dear for offering in divine worship that which the Lord
commanded them not. It is an honour done unto Christ, when you
account that only decent, orderly and convenient in his house
which depends upon the institution and appointment of Himself, who
is the only head and lawgiver of his church.”

Page 65. “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it
free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in
anything contrary to his word, or not contained in it: so that to
believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of
conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the
requiring an implicit faith and an absolute and blind obedience,
is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also. Acts 4, 19.
Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more
than unto God, judge ye. Acts 5, 29. We ought to obey God rather
than men. Jam. 4, 12. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save
and to destroy: Who art thou that judgeth another? Col. 2, 22. But
in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines commandments of
men? Mat. 15, 9. Which all are to perish with the using, after the
commandments and doctrines of men. John 4, 22. Ye worship ye know
not what. Hos. 5, 11. Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment
because he willingly walked after the commandment.”

These are the scriptures they quote for their proof, with many
more. All these quotations, quoted out of the book of the
Confession of their own Faith, with much more, was presented to
the abovesaid Courts, Elders and Messengers of said churches, with
the following questions, grounded upon the said Confession of
their pretended Faith, but can obtain no answer but violence to
compel us to rebel against it, as will appear by said questions as
followeth.

To Richard Christophers Assistant, and from him to Gov.
Saltonstall and Eliphalet Adams.

I request of you, as you profess yourselves to be Christians, and
the Scripture to be your rule, to give me a direct answer to these
scriptural questions, Rom. 4, 15. “For where no law is, there is
no transgression.”

My question is, Hath God any law to forbid labor on the first day
of the week? If he hath, quote chapter and verse for it, to
convict us of our error, or be convicted that you will be found
fighters against God, in striving to compel us to worship the
works of your own hands, which would be idolatry in us.

And consider the age and antiquity of an idol doth not make the
sin one whit the less, but the greater; for God’s patience and
long suffering towards idolaters should lead them to repentance.

A second question I crave of you is, Whether the name “Sabbath”
(which you impose upon the first day of the week in your law book)
be a title that God by his word hath put upon it? If it be, pray
quote the chapter and verse, where it is so named by God’s word;
if not, judge yourselves.

A third question I crave your answer to is, Whether the name
Lord’s Day (which you impose in your law book on the first day of
the week) be a Scripture name peculiar to that day? And how you
prove the revelations of Jesus Christ to John was upon the first
day of the week?

And if you cannot answer the said questions by the holy
Scriptures, then I request of you to read and to consider what is
written, Psal. 94, 20, 21. “Shall the throne of iniquity have
fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather
themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn
the innocent blood.” From the New London Prison, the 17th of the
9th month, 1719.

And here follows a copy of my request to Court Elders and
Messengers, wrote under the above questions as it is here.

My request to you is, That you will be pleased to see that an
answer to my questions may be returned, by you or your elders, as
you will answer it before God, the judge of Heaven and earth, and
that we may not be compelled by the Authority to offer to God in
divine worship that which he hath not commanded, against our
consciences, and contrary to the Confession of your own Faith; and
if God hath commanded the first day of the week to be kept for a
Sabbath, to quote to us the place in Scripture where it is so
commanded, and send it to us: And if there be no command of God
for it in the Holy Scriptures, and only your own law in your Law
Book, and your minister’s doctrine for it, then I desire you to
read and consider what is written, Mat. 15, 7th, 8th and 9th
verses, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth
me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain
they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men.”

New London, the 7th of the third month, 1721. From him that wishes
you well, and desires to see your salvation and not your
destruction.

But I could obtain no answer from them; “For every one that doeth
evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds
should be reproved.” John 3, 20.

And now my request to you, the said Courts, Elders and Messengers,
is, in the presence and view of the world, to shew us chapter and
verse, or verses, where God’s command is which commands the
keeping the first day of the week for a Sabbath, by which you are
not in the same danger Nadab and Abihu was, that we may escape
with you; for I can find no such commandment throughout the whole
Bible: For you, in the Confession of your Faith, set before us the
great danger we are in, if we offer to God that in divine worship
which he hath not commanded; not only the loss of our lives, as
Nadab and Abihu did theirs, but eternal damnation also; as appears
in your “Confessions of Faith,” Page 7, and in your second Counsel
(before quoted).

Upon this consideration, I request this favor of you, so that we
may venture in with you in keeping of it, by a commandment from
God, if you know of any, for this will be more for your honour
than to compel us against our own consciences (and your own
counsels) by your own law, accompanied with your whips, stocks,
fines and imprisonments; which hitherto you have been using to
compel us to offer in divine worship that which God hath not
commanded; and besides this, we are ashamed (I do not say you) to
pretend to be “orthodox Christians” and “to resolve our faith into
education, instruction, and the persuasion of others,” seeing you
say in your “Confession,” page 6, that “this is no higher reason
than a Papist, Mahometan or pagan can produce for his religion;”
for we would not be like such spoken of in Zeph. 3, 5, “The unjust
knoweth no shame.”

Thus it appears nakedly before your eyes, and to your consciences,
that either your Counsels, in the Confession of your Faith, is
very erroneous, or else your first day Sabbath, if it have no
command of God for it, which I can find nowhere throughout the
whole Bible—and that which can be found nowhere may well be
concluded not to be at all. And the said Counsels in the
Confession of your Faith is so substantially grounded on the holy
Scriptures that I think it most safe to conclude that it is your
Sabbath that is erroneous and idolatry (except you have a
commandment of God for it) by the Confession of your own Faith.

I having been treating upon your Sabbath, the foundation almost of
all your worship, which is the works of your own hands, by your
own Confession, except you can find a commandment of God for
it....

_The following from “A Midnight Cry,” by John Rogers, Sr._

I desire that these following things may be well considered.

First, when God delivered the two tables of stone into the hands
of Moses, he gave him a particular account about the Sabbath how
it was a sign, as is to be seen Exod. 31, beginning at verse 12 to
the end of the chapter, yea, it was a covenanted sign to that
people, as is to be seen, verse 17. Ezek. 20, 12, 20.

Secondly, Moses testifieth to Israel that it was commanded to be
kept upon the account of that deliverance out of Egypt, as is to
be seen Deut. 5, comparing the 12, 13 and 14 verses with the 15th
verse. So that as their deliverance was from a temporal bondage,
so the sign of it was a temporal rest; and the sign was for a
covenant between God and them, of his safe protecting them from
the oppression of their enemies, in that inheritance which he gave
them while they kept his laws.

Thirdly, Christ testifieth that the priests profaned the Sabbath
in the temple and yet were blameless, Mat. 12, 5, compared with
Numb. 28, 9, 10, so that we may well conclude those sacrifices by
which they profaned the Sabbath, though they were but signs in
themselves, yet the Sabbath which was of less value was to give
place that the greater might not be omitted.

Fourthly; The man that bore a burden on the Sabbath day, to wit,
his bed, John 5, 10, profaned it in so doing, and was as blameless
as the priests; for that sign under the law was not the Sabbath,
any more than that circumcision commanded to Abraham was the
circumcision, and therefore, saith the apostle, That is not
circumcision that is outward in the flesh, Rom. 4, 12. Thus we see
he calls it the sign of circumcision, though the scriptures did no
where call it a sign, but called it circumcision; but the 7th day
Sabbath God declared to be a sign, yea, a covenanted sign with his
people, as circumcision was, as is to be seen, by comparing these
places of scripture together, Exod. 31, 13, 16, 17. Gen. 17, 10,
13 and 14.

Fifthly, Seeing that God testifieth that the weekly 7th day
Sabbath is a sign, and gave no such plain demonstration of any
other of the Sabbaths under the law, we have good and better
reason to judge that Paul’s words, Col. 2, 16, 17 (Let no man
therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy
day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a
shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ) comprehends
the 7th day Sabbath in a special manner, seeing it agrees with
God’s testimony to Israel, that it was a sign to them, and a sign
is not the substance; for a shadow is but the sign of the
substance.

And lastly, Seeing that God testifieth to Israel that the 7th day
Sabbath was a sign, so it was no more the Sabbath than the seven
stars which John saw in the right hand of Christ were the angels
of the seven churches, nor no more the Sabbath than the seven
golden candlesticks were the seven churches, nor no more the
Sabbath than those fat kine that Pharaoh saw were the seven
plentiful years; which sort of creature (we afterwards read) they
made an image of and worshipped; nor no more the Sabbath than the
sign of circumcision was the circumcision; nor no more the Sabbath
(under the first covenant) than the wine that Christ gave his
disciples to drink was the blood of the New Testament or covenant;
nor no more the Sabbath (under the first testament) than the bread
that Christ gave to his disciples was his body under the second or
new covenant.

Thus we see that signs (in the Scripture) bear the complete name
of the substance or thing they signify; so the 7th day Sabbath was
a sign under the first covenant, and so continued till the
establishment of the second, and then both the covenant and signs
under it ceased; for they were signs of instruction to the church,
that they might impose their faith on the things they signified,
which were to be fulfilled by Christ, who was the substance of
them all; and so at his coming they were all nailed to his cross,
and so ceased. Eph. 2, 15, 16. Col. 2, 14. And so likewise the
signs that are now in being (under the new covenant) are to
continue till Christ’s coming in his manhood, I Cor. 11, 26, and
then they will cease also.

“ADVERTISEMENT.”

JOHN ROGERS, SR.

Whereas there is a printed law in her Majesty’s Colony of
Connecticut, entitled only “Heriticks,” in the preface to it they
say “To prevent the danger persons are in of being poisoned in
their judgments and principles by hereticks,” etc.

Which said law the queen by advice of her council hath condemned,
repealed and declared it void and of none effect, it being
contrary to their charter. And indeed there is a good hand of God
in the Queen’s act, for I know of no sect worse poisoned in their
judgments and principles by gross heresy than the Church of New
England; and it is very evident that hereticks have ever
persecuted the true church under abusive titles, as deceivers,
hereticks, Quakers, and the like abusive titles, which they
themselves are guilty of; for erroneous persons, principles and
practices are condemned by the scriptures of truth; so that they
have no other way to cloak themselves, under their delusion and
heresy, but by casting such like odious titles on the children of
God, and so persecute them and burn their books; for Satan’s
design in making use of these deluded persons, thus to act, is to
suppress truth under pretense of heresy; as for instance I shall
begin with the master of the house, whom they called Beelzebub,
the prince of devils, Mat. 12, 24. He went by the name of
“deceiver,” Mat. 27, 63. Paul by the name of heretick, Acts 24,
14. Luther’s books were burnt under pretense utterly to suppress
heresy; the worthy martyrs in Queen Martyr Mary’s time suffered
death under the name of hereticks; and those worthy martyrs in
Boston in New England under the name of Quakers and hereticks; and
my books by this law now repealed have been condemned and burnt,
under pretense of heresy, though I have made fair proffers at
their General Court to reward any person well for their time and
pains that would endeavor to show me any one error in them, but
none have yet publickly appeared.

FOLLOWING FROM ACCOUNT OF SAMUEL
BOWNAS OF HIS “CONVERSATION
WITH JOHN ROGERS,” 1703.

He (John Rogers) spoke very much of his satisfaction and unity
with George Fox, John Stubbs, John Burnyeat and William Edmundson
as the Lord’s servants, with sundry others of the first visitors
of that country, that he knew them to be sent of God, and that
they had carried the reformation further than any of the
Protestants ever did before them, since the general apostacy from
the purity both of faith and doctrine; first the church of England
they did nothing in the end but made an English translation of the
Latin service used before, the Presbyterians they dissented and
the Independants, but came not to the root of the matter; the
Baptists dissented from the other three, but went not through.
Upon which, though I could not wholly agree with him in his
assertions, I queried if he thought that all these several steps
of the English church from Popery, the Presbyterians and
Independants from the English church, and the Baptists from all
three of them, had not something of good in them, viz. I mean
whether the first concerned in dissenting from Popery, though they
afterwards rested too much in the form of worship in the Episcopal
way, had not the aid of Christ’s spirit to assist them in their
dissent? And so for all the rest. This he did readily grant to be
a great truth; and so allowing that the first reformers actuated
by divine light, and being faithful to what was made known to
them, had their reward; and their successors sat down in that form
their predecessors had left them in, but did not regard that Power
and Life by which they were actuated, and so became zealots for
that form, but opposed the Power. “And this,” said he, “is the
true cause of the several steps of dissent one from another; and
the reason why there is so little Christian love, and so much
bitterness and envy one against another, is their sitting down
contented, each in their own form without the Power, so that they
are all in one and the same spirit, acting their part in the
several forms of worship in their own wills and time, not only
opposing the Spirit of Truth, but making it the object of their
scorn and those who adhere to it the subject of their reproach,
contempt and envy; and this is the foundation of persecution” said
he....

FROM REPLY TO J. BACKUS.

JOHN ROGERS, 2D.

... Here I think he (Backus) does the government no honor by
informing the world that they have made laws to debar such as
differ from them in matters of religion the liberty of the king’s
highway to pass to their own meetings, since our lord the king
hath granted equal liberty of conscience to all dissenters to hold
their meetings and serve God according to their consciences....

In his 13th page he gives a record (of his own making) relating to
John Bolles, which record declares that J. Bolles acknowledged
that he came from New London, and was going to Lebanon, and that
he knew it was contrary to our law, and that they did it in
defiance of the law.

To which I answer, “That God’s three children were cast into the
fiery furnace for declaring their defiance to the king’s law,
which was made to force men’s consciences in matters of religion;
and all the prophets and apostles suffered for opposing those laws
which were set up to force people’s consciences in matters of
worshipping God; And all the martyrs which have suffered the
flames and other tortures ever since, it has been for manifesting
their defiance to such laws as have been set up by the worldly
government to uphold false worship, or to restrain them from
worshipping God according to their consciences. Now for as much as
God has justified all those sufferers above-mentioned, for their
bold defiance of such laws as were set up by man to prevent people
serving God according to their consciences, well may we have
confidence that God will justify us for the same thing. We have
also further to plead in our own justification in this matter than
those sufferers above-mentioned had, inasmuch as our lord the king
has granted us the same liberty to meet together and worship God
according to our consciences as he has given to our persecutors:
So that in the consideration of what is here expressed, I think J.
Bolles and his brethren are highly commendable for their
faithfulness to God, in manifesting their defiance against such
laws as would restrain them from worshipping God according to
their consciences.

... In his 14th chapter, he charges the sufferers to be most
daring and malicious offenders, utterly disregarding those
Scriptures, Rom. 13, Tit. 3, I Pet. 2, etc.

In the first place I shall fully grant from those Scriptures, and
many more that might be mentioned, that the worldly government is
set up of God, and are God’s ministers to act in worldly matters
between man and man, and that the law that God hath put into their
hands is good, if they use it lawfully;... according to what is
written, I Tim. 1, 8, 9, 10. And while the worldly government act
within their commission, God is with them and has put such carnal
weapons in their hands as is sufficient to rule all carnal
persons, which are stocks, fines, prisons, whip and gallows, which
above-named weapons are sufficient to conquer and subdue all
carnal and guilty persons, so that rulers are a terror to
evil-doers.

And forasmuch as we acknowledge the worldly government to be set
up by God, we have always paid all public demands for upholding
the same; as town rates, county-rates and all other demands,
excepting such as are for the upholding hireling ministers and
false teachers which God has called us to testify against. Now
when the worldly rulers take upon themselves to make laws relating
to God’s worship, and thereby force men’s consciences, and so turn
their sword against God’s children, they then act beyond their
commission and out of their jurisdiction; and are so far from
being God’s ministers that they are fighters against God and his
church; and God is so far from making them a terror to his church
that he gives his church and people faith and boldness to
withstand them to their faces....

FROM ANSWER TO A PAMPHLET BY
COTTON MATHER.

BY JOHN ROGERS, 2D.

... A travelling ministry are sent from town to town and from city
to city, and from country to country, and over sea, so that they
are not only taken from their own employment, but are also sent
upon charges; their state and condition is like a man that is
prest a soldier and sent away from his own living on charges and
therefore maintained at the king’s charge. And hath not this man
power to forbear work? though he tarry some days at a place, must
he therefore maintain himself by his own labor? is not this the
very state of a travelling ministry of the gospel?...

... I have thus proved by Scripture that a traveling ministry of
the Gospel hath power to forbear work. And secondly that the
churches ought to relieve them: And thirdly have shewed their
differing state from settled elders.

... In the second place, I shall now prove by Scripture that
settled elders are commanded to work with their hands and thereby
to support the weak; by being givers rather than receivers.—We
find that the apostle sends for the elders of the church.—He saith
to them, I have coveted no man’s silver or gold, or apparel; ye
yourselves know that these hands of mine have ministered unto my
necessities and to them that were with me; I have showed you all
things, how that so laboring, ye ought to support the weak, and to
remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more
blessed to give than to receive....

... And 3rdly Whereas Christ, upon sending them forth to preach
the gospel, forbids them making any provision for their journey,
requiring them to expect their meat and reward from his hands....

... From hence we may see by Scripture that Christ’s ministers,
whom he calls and sends to preach the Gospel, are so well provided
for by Him that they have no need to be hired by the children of
the world; for in so doing they would reproach their Lord and
Master and shew themselves not only faithless, but wickedly
covetous, in practising contrary to this doctrine of Christ, and
to come under the condemnation of this great sin so much condemned
in Scripture, “The priests whereof teach for hire, and the
prophets whereof divine for money, yet they will lean upon the
Lord, and say, is not the Lord among us; none evil can come upon
us. Therefore shall Zion for your sakes be plowed as a field, and
Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountains of the house as
the high places of the forest ... yea they are greedy dogs, which
can never have enough, they are shepherds that cannot understand;
they all look to their own way, every one for his gain from his
quarter.”... Christ calls them hirelings and ravening wolves.

And though the nameless authors of the said Pamphlet are pleased
to call such (as join with Christ and his shepherds, to testify
against these hirelings) by the name of wolves, yet these
hirelings, or at least their shearers, the collectors, have always
taken them for sheep, especially about shearing time.... Now we
that join with Christ and the true shepherds to testify against
these hirelings, we come under the blessing of Christ ... Blessed
are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, for so
persecuted they the prophets which were before you; yea this must
we suffer all the time that these hireling prophets are under this
curse of Christ. Wo unto you when all men shall speak well of you,
for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

... In page 8, they assert ... “That he be given to hospitality”
and say they, “how is it possible for him to be so, if you be
given to covetousness, and given to dishonesty and cheat him of
his maintainance?”

To which I answer If it be the people’s gift, its their
hospitality and not the ministers: the churl may be liberal, if
other men’s purses make him so. But the ministers of the Gospel
are given to hospitality of that which their own hands have
ministered to them, and are obedient to their Master’s words, who
hath said unto them, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

... And it is a shame for you to tell of the galling of your hands
with inferior labor for the getting of bread; it is your duty to
do so, and if the people be the cause, as you say, of your
laboring with your hands, they are worthy of praise in causing you
to do your duty, and you ought to have done it without their
causing you to do it, and therefore you proclaim your shame. For
you ought to have taken the holy prophets, and Christ and his
apostles for your example, to have labored with your hands, and
not the false prophets and false teachers, who sought to live upon
the people,... Christ shews that such stewards as those could not
dig for their living, and to beg they were ashamed....

And the true prophets, and Christ with his apostles have set us
better example.... Here you may see that Elijah was plowing ...
here Elisha went to Jordan with the sons of the prophets and cut
down wood.... Amos was a husbandman and a gatherer of wild
figs.... Christ was a carpenter.... Paul was a tayler or
tent-maker and worked at it tho’ he were a travelling minister of
the gospel,—and so did the rest of the apostles, as is to be
seen.... These examples, with that apostolical command (to the
elders of the church) Acts 20, 34, 35, ought to be attended by
Christ’s ministers....

FROM REPLY TO PETER PRATT.

JOHN ROGERS, 2D.

As it has ever been allowed that the defaming of the dead is a
mark of the most unmanly and base spirit of a coward and ought to
be abhorred by all persons who bear the image of man; then how
much more abominable is it of P. P. to sport himself with his own
lies over a man in his grave? And I think no person of common
reason will expect any apology of me on account of this my
undertaking, since my silence in this matter would have rendered
me very unmanly....

... If John Roger’s books contain “but few of his principles” then
how comes P. P. to know what his principles are, several years
after his death? except the same spirit which once deceived him in
the matter of longitude has again deceived him concerning J. R.’s
principles; and we have as much reason to question the truth of
what he tells us of J. R.’s principles (since he has no better
proof than his own bare word) as the General Assembly had to
question the truth of longitude, which soon after proved a
delusion of Satan....

Now by these foolish and vain pretended reasons, the reader may
plainly see that he only wanted an excuse to evade J. R.’s books,
that he might take his full swing to bely and abuse him at his
pleasure; because he well knew that if he had quoted his books,
they would have discovered his falsehoods....

But I should not have enlarged so much upon this head, were it not
that I am sensible that there are many thousands of grown persons
in this Colony that for want of opportunity to be informed in the
principles of other sects remain so ignorant that they know no
difference between the Church of England and the Papists, nor
between the Quakers and the Baptists, but esteem each couple to be
alike. And now is it possible that such persons should be able to
discern the ignorance of P. P.?...

... Now how marvellous is it that P. P., who knew himself to be a
man so inconstant and changeable, not only in his worldly concerns
from his very childhood, but also in matters of religion since he
has arrived to riper years, should presume to put out a book only
on his bare word, without any proof at all. Surely he might
reasonably have thought that all who knew him would expect better
proof from such an inconstant person than from any other man....

FROM ANSWER TO MR. BYLES, BY JOHN
AND JOSEPH BOLLES.

Considerable light is thrown upon the “Outbreak” of 1764-66 by a
Rogerene pamphlet (of about 1759), which appeared in several
editions, sometimes ascribed on the title-page to John Bolles,
sometimes to his son Joseph, and probably the joint work of father
and son, written out by the latter; thus having a style noticeably
different from that of John Bolles, although equally clear-cut and
forcible. John Bolles, being at the date of this work eighty-two
years of age, may be supposed to have welcomed the aid of his son
Joseph, both as collaborator and amanuensis. The following is from a
copy of this work to be found in the New London Public Library:—

An Answer to A Book entitled The Christian Sabbath, explained and
vindicated in a discourse on Exodus XX. 8.[192] Jan. 14, 1759,
upon a particular occasion, by Mather Byles, pastor of “The First
Church of Christ” (as he saith) in New London, written by Joseph
Bolles, in behalf of the rest which suffer persecution for
breaking said pretended sabbath.

Footnote 192:

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

In page 5 of Mather Byles sermon, he says: The Christian Sabbath
has of late been publickly attacked; and those who observe it have
been challenged to show any scripture warrant for the practice.

_Ans._

We have been imprisoned 23 at a time, 8 of us about 7 months, and
some of the best of our cattle and horses and other goods taken
away, and 3 of us cruelly whipped, near 20 stripes apiece, for
doing the business of our ordinary calling on the 1st day of the
week, which he calls the Sabbath, all within 9 months. And in
these persecutions we have continually desired our persecutors to
show any Scripture warrant for their practice; we have also sent
forth advertisements promising ten pounds reward to any person
that could show us one word in the Bible that forbids labor on
this pretended Sabbath; which we suppose he calls “a challenge;”
and because he cannot find a word in the Bible that forbids labor
on his pretended Sabbath he has preached a sermon instead thereof,
and though he calls it the Christian Sabbath, it is not called so
in Scripture; by which it is evident it was not the Christian
Sabbath in the apostles time; for if it had been they would have
called it so. Also his text is part of the commandment to labor
six days and rest the seventh; so that his own text that he builds
his Sabbath upon requires labor on his pretended Sabbath. For it
says six days shalt thou labor; and we know that this pretended
Sabbath is the first of the six days....

... In page 18 he says, “And lastly to assign a reason why there
is no command for this Sabbath in the New Test.;” and in his next
page he says, “The apostles left it to after discoveries,” which
will be answered in its place. But neither God nor man require us
to keep a Sabbath without a law, “For where no law is, there is no
transgression.” Rom. IV. 15. And sin is not imputed when there is
no law: And the “Confession of Faith” of this Colony requires a
command for all the worship we perform to God, in page 7, and
there is no discovery of this pretended Sabbath in the Bible; for
he says, “the apostles left it to after discoveries,” and the
first command that we have discovered for this pretended Sabbath
was more than 300 years after Christ by Constantine the emperor,
recorded in “Fox’s Acts and Monuments,” Vol. I. p. 134, in these
words: “The Sunday he commanded to be kept holy by all men and
free from all judiciary causes, from markets, marts, fairs and
other manual labors, only husbandry excepted.” Here we may observe
no husbandry labor is forbidden, in this “after discovery.”

Also king Inas, who reigned in England, in the year of our Lord
712, commanded that infants should be baptised within 30 days, and
that no man should labor on Sunday. “Fox’s Acts etc.” Vol. I, P.
1016. Observe in this after discovery all labour is forbidden; as
popish darkness increased, this Sabbath strengthened and infant
baptism was also “discovered.”

Also king Edgar, who began his reign in England in the year of our
Lord 959, he ordained that Sunday should be kept holy from
Saturday noon till Monday morning, and he ordained and decreed for
holy days and fasting days. “Fox’s Acts,” Vol. I. P. 1017. Observe
this “after discovery” being in midnight popish darkness, this
Sabbath was kept more strict and they also discovered half a day
more, and holy days and fasting days to be observed. Also king
Canutus, who began to reign in England in the year 1016, he
commanded celebration of the Sabbath from Saturday noon till
Monday morning. This king “discovered” it by the name of
“Sabbath”; but the other three “discovered” it by the name of
“Sunday.”

Also in our Colony there is an ample “after discovery” of it by
the name of Sabbath or Lord’s day, which exceeds the four other
“after discoveries;” with a famous law to torture the bodies of
them that break this pretended Sabbath, by whipping, not exceeding
20 stripes if they refuse to pay a fine; and doubtless there has
been more “after discoveries” by express commands, for this
pretended Sabbath, in Rome, France and Spain. Therefore if M. B.
will preach up this pretended Sabbath, which he says the apostles
left to “after discoveries,” he ought to have taken his text out
of the forementioned “after discoveries,” where there are express
commands to build their Sabbath upon; but, as he builds it on
God’s commandment, which commands labor on his pretended Sabbath,
it has no foundation to stand upon, and therefore stands upon
nothing. No “after discovery,” neither this pretended Sabbath,
infant baptism, nor the mass nor purgatory, ought to be built on
any text in the Bible. But whoever preaches up any of these “after
discoveries” they ought to take a text out of the law book, where
they are instituted and commanded, and not out of the Bible where
they are not “discovered.”

How fully Mr. Byles had endeavored to stir up the authorities to
take the offenders strenuously in hand will be inferred from the
following, from the same pamphlet.

... He calls us deluded, blind, obstinate, because we suffer
persecution for breaking a Sabbath which he says the apostles left
to “after discoveries.” But it is this sort of ministers that
preach to our General Court to suppress or persecute them that
walk by the apostle’s doctrine, for not observing this Sabbath
which he says the apostles left to “after discoveries.”

He further says:

“Take away the Sabbath and what will be the consequence?”

_Ans._ He speaks like the idolaters of old. Judges XVIII. 24. “Ye
have taken away my gods which I made, and the priests,—and what
have I more?” Here we may see the idolaters speak all with one
voice; their heart is after their idols and their priests more
than after God.

Next he says: “Errors in doctrine and corruption in practice would
break in upon us like a flood, immorality would triumph without
control.”

_Ans._

It is such a time now, for there are errors in doctrine, manifest
errors indeed, in this and other sermons; and corruption in
practice is already broken in upon us like a flood, and immorality
triumphs almost without control among the people, who are
encouraged to it by the example of their priests, which live
immoral lives in covetousness, pride, fulness of bread and
abundance of idleness.... Also the observers of this pretended
Sabbath do allow that there is more immorality amongst themselves
than there is among us who do not observe it. Immorality triumphs
in a high degree, even in gathering money for the priests of many
poor people to whom there is more need to give, and casting some
into prison to force them against their conscience to pay money to
maintain such priests in idleness,[193] which they know God hath
not sent to teach them.

Footnote 193:

See “Debate Between Mr. Byles and the Cong. Church.”—_People._ “We
never could conceive nor imagine how you could spend your time.
You never visited any of your parishioners, but very seldom—seldom
preached a new sermon; but old sermons over and over, etc.”

EXTRACTS FROM “LOOKING GLASS FOR
THE PRESBYTERIANS OF NEW LONDON.”

JOHN ROGERS, 3D.

To see their Worship and worshippers Weighed in the balance and
Found Wanting.—With a true account of what the people called
Rogerenes have suffered in that town, from the 10th of June 1764
to the 13th of December 1766. Who suffered for testifying, That it
was contrary to Scripture for ministers of the gospel to teach for
hire. That the first day of the week was no Sabbath by God’s
appointment. That sprinkling infants is no baptism and nothing
short of blasphemy, being contrary to the example set us by Christ
and his holy apostles. That long public prayers in synagogues is
forbidden by Christ. Also for reproving their church and minister
for their great pride, vain-glory and friendship of the world they
lived in.—With a brief discourse in favour of women’s prophesying
or teaching in the church.—Written by John Rogers, New London.
Providence N.E. Printed by the author 1767.

June 10, 1764. We went to the meeting house at New London, and
some of our people went into the house and sat down, others
tarried without and sat upon the ground some distance from the
house. And when Mather Byles their priest began to say over his
formal, synagogue prayer, forbidden by Christ, Mat. VI. 5 etc.,
some of our women began to knit, others to sew, that it might be
made manifest they had no fellowship with such unfruitful works of
darkness. But justice Coit and the congregation were much offended
by this testimony, and fell upon them in the very time of prayer
and pretended divine worship; also they fell upon all the rest of
our people that were sitting quietly in the house, making no
difference between them that transgressed the law and them that
transgressed not; for they drove us all out of the house in a most
furious manner; pushing, kicking, striking etc., so that the
meeting was broken up for some considerable time and the house in
great confusion: Moreover, they fell upon our friends that were
sitting abroad, striking and kicking both men and women, old and
young, driving all of us to prison in a furious and tumultuous
manner.

... The authority and minister and some of the people were greatly
offended at our opposing their false worship; for they carried on
their worship in such pride, and so contrary to the Holy
Scriptures that they could no ways defend it by the Scriptures and
therefore took another way to defend it never practised by Christ
or any of his followers. For justice Coit did continually fall
upon us when we came among them and drive us to prison, in an
angry and furious manner; sometimes twenty sometimes thirty in a
day, striking and kicking both men and women, pulling off women’s
caps and bonnets and tearing them to pieces with their hands,
setting an example to the rest of the people; also he made no
difference between them that spoke at the meeting house against
their worship and those that did not speak; for his constant
practice was to fall upon all our friends that came to the meeting
house and all that he could see in sight of the house and drive
them to prison, he and his company, in a most furious and
tumultuous manner, stopping their mouths when they went to speak,
choking them etc. Also he doubled our imprisonments every time we
came among them; but this method he took added no peace to them,
for some of our friends were always coming out of prison, as well
as going in, ... However, this was the method they took, and after
this manner they celebrated their Sabbaths from the 10th of June
to the 12th of August.

... February 16. Some of our friends were sitting quietly in the
meeting house, between meetings, and Col. Saltonstall[194] came in
and laid hold of an old man that had the numb palsy, aged 73
years, and with great violence hauled him out of the seat, setting
an example to others, who fell upon them and drove them out of the
house and to the court house, in a furious manner, and carried
them up through a trap door into a dark garret and locked them in,
and at night a company of their base men got together, among which
were ... This base company went into the court house and shut
themselves in and took our friends out of the attic and offered
shameful abuse to our women in the dark.... Now after this
shameful abuse to the women, they took two men and stripped off
their clothes and tied them to a post in the court house and
whipped them in a most unmerciful manner, especially one of them,
which they struck unmerciful blows with a staff and with bunches
of rods on his back, till it was like a jelly, also they rubbed
tar into their wounds and whipped upon the tar, forcing it into
their flesh, also they rubbed tar in the mouths of the men and
women when they went to speak. When these two men were first tied
to the post they sang praises to God, and in the time of their
torment they called upon God to strengthen them. After this, they
laid hold on these two men and forced them to run down near to the
town wharf and threw them into the water several times; also they
took their hats and threw water on them for some considerable
time. Moreover, they threw the women into the water. And after
this the sheriff’s eldest son and another man with him took a poor
weakly woman, forty odd years of age, and forced her to run
through the streets till she dropped down, and then they left
her....

Footnote 194:

Gurdon, son of Governor Saltonstall.

Now the next first day of the week, after Col. Saltonstall shut
our friends up in the court house and set his son Dudley and
others to abuse us, it being the 23d of February, we were coming
to the meeting house again, but as soon as we appeared in sight,
Col. Saltonstall run out and met us, and a great company with him,
and fell upon us in a very angry manner, before we had spoke one
word, to drive us to the court house, as he did the week before,
when our friends were sitting quietly in the house between
meetings. But as soon as they fell on us, we spoke and made a
great noise, and refused to go with them, telling them we chose to
be killed publickly before the people, rather than to be murdered
privately in the court house.

Now the tumult grew very great, so that the meeting was broken up
for some considerable time, and they dragged both men and women on
the ground to the court house;[195] some by their hands, some by
their legs, and some by the hair of their heads, striking them
with their fists, kicking them, striking and punching them with
staffs and tearing the clothes from their backs, and they dragged
them into the court house and hauled both men and women up two
pair of stairs, and hauled them up through a trap door into that
dark loft that they had shut our friends up in the week before,
and they locked them in. In this tumult an aged woman was so
overcome that she fainted away and they left her lying on the
ground. Now there were present in this riot justice ——, justice
——, justice ——, the high-sheriff and Col. ——, besides constables
and grandjurymen: There was also a deacon among them, which makes
us write as follows.

Footnote 195:

See likeness to similar scene in Governor Saltonstall’s time,
1721 (Part II, Chapter X).

The deacon and the justices
Were busy in this fray,
Church members and grandjurymen
Forgot their Sabbath day.

After the tumult was over, these church members remembered their
Sabbath, and returned to their pretended worship again: But as
soon as that was over, the authority consulted together at the
meeting house, and sent the high-sheriff, who came with a company
of men and took down ten women out of that dark loft that the
authority had shut them up in (two of these women had young
children with them and another was big with child)[196] and
committed them to prison, leaving near twenty small children
motherless at their homes. Now as the high-sheriff was going from
the meeting house, to commit these women to prison, some of the
people of the town asked him what they were going to do with our
friends; the sheriff answered that the women were to be committed
to prison, but he said the men were to be delivered up to Satan to
be buffetted. So the authority kept the men locked up in that dark
garret till night, and then they were delivered up to the
authority’s children and a rude company of young men, who came and
unlocked the trap door and abused our friends in the manner
following: They took down one man first out of this dark loft and
brought him down into the lower room of the court-house, and tied
his hands round a post, also they tied another line to his hands
and hoisted him up by a tackle, then they brought his knees round
the post and tied them with a line, and stripped his clothes up
over his head and tied them also; then they whipped him in a very
barbarous manner by the light of a candle. And when they had done
torturing him, they let him down and shut him up in one of the
court house chambers. They then brought down another out of the
garret, and tortured him after the same manner as they did the
first, and then shut him up also, pretending they would whip them
all over again, except they would recant and promise not to come
among them any more. There were twelve whippers that took turns at
the whip, and commonly three or four to whip one man, one after
another. They pretended to give those men thirty nine stripes
each, but they used several sorts of whips, especially one
unmerciful instrument made of cow-hide, also they whipped them
with large rods tied together, some of which had ten in a bunch,
so that they far exceeded thirty nine stripes, for they struck
each person thirty nine times with that cruel instrument, except
one man, which after they had struck him thirty unmerciful blows,
one of the spectators ran and untied him, telling the whippers he
was an old man and they ought to use some discretion towards him.
Nine men were thus used this night, all heads of families, some of
which were elderly men that had great families of children.

Footnote 196:

Delight Rogers (wife of John Rogers, 3d) was one of the women
imprisoned. Her daughter Anna (mother of John R. Bolles) was
born very soon after her release. The near-sightedness of this
daughter was attributed to the fact that her mother wept so much
during her imprisonment. Delight Rogers sat with the rest in the
meeting-house; she did not take any work there. Mr. John R.
Bolles in “Reminiscences of his Life,” published in a New London
paper, said that the venerable Dr. Nathaniel Petting, who knew
Delight Rogers, used to say to him: “If there ever was a good
woman, your grandmother Lighty was one.”

This whipping was executed in a very barbarous manner, for the
rods were trimmed, and long sharp fangs left on them, to tear the
flesh of the sufferers, also these men that whipped our friends
struck them in such a violent manner with these heavy bunches of
rods that they beat and bruised their flesh till it was like
jelly. Moreover some of their wrists were so cut and their sinews
so much hurt with the line they hung by, that several of their
hands were numb for more than two months after. Also the two men
that had been so unmercifully whipped by this company in the court
house the week before, and otherwise abused, were of these men
that suffered that night: And they struck one of these men, he
that had been the most abused the week before, forty three cruel
blows on his old sores, and ten or twelve of these blows were
after he had swooned away. Our persecutors cut these rods upon
their Sabbath, and fitted them at the court house, and Colonel
Saltonstall was at the court house among them when they were
preparing the rods.... When their persecutors heard them praying
and calling on Christ for strength, they would threaten them, and
whip them with all their might, endeavoring to make them promise
to renounce their testimony against their worship, but were not
able to make one of them renounce their testimony, or make any
promise at all. But the sufferers told them to this effect, that
what they did against their worship was for no other end but to
please God and keep a good conscience, and that if they should
promise to renounce their testimony God would renounce their souls
forever. Also when some of the men that had suffered this cruel
whipping were shut up in the court house chamber, they prayed
earnestly to God to strengthen their brethren that were to suffer,
also they prayed for their persecutors, for God gave them more
than a common love to those that were tormenting them.

So after these nine men had suffered, they were set at liberty.
Their persecutors threatened them to double their whipping every
time they came to the meeting house among them. And no doubt they
would have gone further, had not God prevented them by making a
division among the people; the neighboring towns crying out
against such barbarous and unlawful behavior; also it was a common
saying among the people that they were sorry their rulers had
resigned up their authority to a company of boys and set them to
defend their worship....

The above is but a small part of such blood-curdling accounts,
filling a good-sized pamphlet. Portions will be found in the
“History of New London,” not quoted here. Near the end is something
less thrilling.

Sept. 14, 1766. Some of our people went and sat down some distance
from the priest’s house, and when he came out to go to meeting,
they walked with him and endeavored to have some friendly
discourse with him concerning the things of God; But the priest
would not talk with them about the things of God. However, they
walked with him and talked to him, but before they came to the
meeting house, justice Coit began to kick them in a furious
manner, especially the women. Also one of the townsmen fell upon
them, punching both men and women with a staff in a cruel manner,
so they were driven by some of the people to the upper end of the
town.

* * * * *

The next first day of the week, being the 21st of Sept., as some
of us were setting by the side of a house, between meetings, about
four or five rods from the priest’s house, saying nothing to any
person, the high-sheriff came, with some assistants and took us
and sent for justice Coit, who came and committed eight men of us
to prison. And on the 26th day of the same month, justice Coit
came to the prison, and we were taken out and brought before him,
and he charged us with disturbing the minister’s peace. We told
him we had no thought of doing the minister any hurt. Justice Coit
answered, that he did not suppose that we intended to strike him
or wrestle with him, nor did he suppose we intended to hurt a hair
of his head, but he supposed that we intended, when the minister
came out, to go along by his side and talk with him. So when
justice Coit had confessed that he did not suppose we intended to
hurt a hair of the priest’s head, he fined us five shillings each,
and required bonds of good behavior towards all his majesty’s
subjects; but especially towards the priest. But we refused to
give such bonds, looking upon the judgment to be very absurd, and
that justice Coit’s supposing that we intended to talk with the
priest was not breach of the peace in us, so he committed seven of
us to prison again, all heads of families, one of which men was in
his 75th year. Four of these men were kept in prison till the 13th
of December following, and two were set at liberty about the 28th
of November, and one within a few days after we were committed to
prison.

Now after these men were committed to prison, our friends that
were at liberty thought it necessary that some of our people
should go on the first days of the week and set in the priest’s
sight and not fear them that persecute the body. But when the
priest saw them sitting in sight, if it were but a few women, he
would not come out of his house to go to meeting.... Also this
behavior of the priest occasioned much trouble to his poor flock,
for sometimes the bell would ring and the people sit waiting for
their priest till it was time for meeting to be half done: And
then justice Coit, or some of the rest of his sheep, were obliged
to come and move the women out of the priest’s sight, and guard
their shepherd to the meeting house, lest these women should speak
to him of the things of God.

It was almost every day of the first days of the week for the
whole time of this imprisonment, which was near three months, that
this shepherd was kept in his house by the sight of our friends,
and sometimes only at the sight of a few women, and he never
ventured to come out till some of his sheep came and drove the
women away. But justice Coit committed no more of our friends to
prison under bonds of good behavior because he supposed they
intended to talk with the priest, after these men above mentioned.
But the 23rd of November, one of our men told the priest, after he
was come out of the meeting house, that he came to put him in mind
how they kept God’s children in prison, and that their worship was
upheld by cruelty. The priest answered to this effect, that they
could uphold it in no other way. Then the man replied it must
certainly be of the devil, if there was no other way to uphold it
but by cruelty. But the sheriff struck him twice on the head, and
punched him with his staff to prevent his speaking with the
priest. And he and three women were committed to prison, but at
night they were set at liberty.... God said, Jer. 1, 7,—“Thou
shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command
thee thou shalt speak.” Also the apostle Paul exhorteth us to be
followers of him as he was of Christ, I Cor. XI. 1. And Paul spent
much time in going from place to place, disputing in the
synagogues on the Sabbath days, as appears in the Acts of the
Apostles. And no doubt they built their synagogues, and thought,
as our neighbors do, that they had a natural right to worship in
them and that the apostle had no right to oppose them in their
worship, for they were as much offended at the apostle as our
neighbors are at us, for they called him a pestilent fellow, and
said he was a mover of sedition throughout the world, Acts XXIV.
5. Also speaking of Paul and Silas they said, Acts XVII, “These
that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also.”

EXTRACTS FROM “A DEBATE BETWEEN
REV. MR. BYLES AND THE CHURCH.”

_Minister._

I have no particular objection to this church; but believe it to be
a true church of our Lord etc.—but it is this mysterious call of
Providence etc.—the churches of this and old England are equal to
me. I am called from one to another where I can be of more
usefulness, which is my duty.... And I believe you had better
dismiss me, as you may get one that will do much better. You want
one that will visit his parishioners—preach a lecture once in a
while.... I was not made for a country minister.... I am weak and
infirm[197] ... to come up this tedious hill all weathers—come in
all out of breath ... obliged to preach till all in a sweat ... then
go out in the cold, on this bleak place ... run the risk of my
health etc.... And then to be treated as I have been by the Quakers
... disturbed upon the holy Sabbath. If I have not the Sabbath, what
have I? tis the sweetest enjoyment of my whole life!—Insulted by
them almost continually, surrounding my house. Many a time has the
bell tolled for hours together, and at last one single man
condescends to come down and drive them off. I would not live such a
life over again for no consideration.... I see no prospect of
amendment ... our laws are not put in full execution. (And then he
went on to show wherein the civil authority, in his opinion, were
deficient in duty with regard to the Quakers etc.[198])—My salary is
not sufficient[199] etc.... My friends are in Boston. Etc.

Footnote 197:

Mr. Byles was at this time thirty years of age.

Footnote 198:

Unfortunately we have merely this in parenthesis concerning the
stand taken by Mr. Byles in regard to the Rogerenes.

Footnote 199:

It will be remembered that Mr. Byle’s salary was a liberal one,
and his family at this date could not have been large.

_People._ These objections are nothing to the purpose, and what you
say about the Quakers is a mere cobweb. As to the call of
Providence, it plainly appears to be money.... Conscience! with what
conscience can you leave this church of Christ? (They then set forth
the obligations he was under to walk with this church; the
connection between them was of a sacred nature etc.)

_Minister._ There are ministers enough to be had.

_People._ Yes, such as you are—We never could conceive nor imagine
how you could spend your time before now, for you never visited any
of your parishioners, but very seldom—seldom preached a new sermon;
but old sermons over and over, again and again; and behold all this
time you have been studying controversies, about modes and forms,
rites and ceremonies! Is it for this we have been paying you this
three years past, when you should have been about your ministry?...
In regard to the Quakers insulting you etc. Is any man wholly free
from persecution? If that is all you have, you ought to be very
thankful that you have no more than a few poor old women sitting
round your gate.

EXTRACTS FROM “THE BATTLE AXE,”

BY TIMOTHY WATROUS, SR., AND TIMOTHY, JR.

Satan, to all classes of the Ecclesiastical system that profess
Christ’s name and prove traitors to his service.

I now address you as my sworn subjects, under full power of my
authority; feeling much gratified to see my kingdom established on
the ruins of God’s creation. Though I have been wounded by Christ,
the invader of my possessions, yet I hold before you the greatness
of my power and the glory of my kingdom. I am the great and high
prince and god of this world.... I am your god, and I warn you of my
great enemy Christ; that you be not found obedient to any of the
requirements of his contracted plan. My ways are broad and easy. I
am high in heart and teach the same to you. That in all nations you
may set my worship in high places, that it may be adorned with all
the splendid glory which belongs to the prince that offered Christ
all the glory of this world. That your places of worship may appear
beautiful to men. And let my servants, your ministers, be men of the
best gifts and talents; for so were your fathers the false prophets.
And be not like Christ’s apostles, who were ignorant, unlearned men.
Even his great apostle, Paul, (they said) in bodily presence was
weak and his speech contemptible. But let it not be so with you....
For it is my will that you should have the praise of men; and
receive from them titles of honor. For the ways of Christ, our great
enemy, are contrary to all men, and even to nature itself, as you
may see throughout all his precepts; for example I Cor. I, 26, 27,
28. “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men
after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God
hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
things that are mighty; and base things of the world and things
which are despised hath God chosen.”

This is no description of an accomplished member of society.
Faithful subjects, when you execute the priest’s office in my
service, put on a dress suitable to your ministration; and let your
bodily presence be amiable and your speech affable, and your
countenance grave and solemn. Salute the people with a comely
behavior, that you may glory in your own presence. For verily I say
unto you, except your outward appearance of righteousness shall
exceed that of Christ’s ministers, you shall in no case deserve the
world....

Agreeably to my counsel, in all cases resent an insult from your
fellows and go forth to war with them; embody yourselves and march
to the field of battle, with religion at your right; and appoint one
of my servants, your ministers, a chaplain to pray for your success.
And there encamp, one against the other; and let my servants, your
priests, on both sides, put up a prayer to the God of heaven that
you may gain the victory over each other; cherishing the belief that
all that die gloriously in battle go immediately to heaven. And when
you are coming together to do the work of human butchery, if a sense
of the horrid piece of work which you are about to perform shall
fill your soldiery with terror, benumb their senses with
intoxicating liquor; and put on confusion and distraction, under the
name of courage and valor; and fear not, for I will be with you and
fill your hearts with such vengeance, through the immediate
influence of my spirit, that you shall be able to perform all my
will and pleasure. And, when you have sufficiently soaked the ground
with the blood of your fellow men, and humbled their hearts and have
gotten your wills upon them; then return and let my servant, your
minister, lift up his voice before you, unto the God of heaven, with
praise and thanks for the victory; that you have been able to do
such deeds as to bereave parents of their sons, wives of their
husbands and children of their fathers.... And then return home full
of the glory of your own shame, and tell your rulers you have saved
their pride, gratified their ambition and saved a little of the
trash of this world; for which you have taken the lives of your
fellow creatures, each one of whom is worth more than all the
treasures of India. For all such things belong to the religion that
I delight in.

Ye fathers, I exhort that you exercise yourselves in laying up
treasure on earth. And ye, young men, that you likewise embrace
every opportunity to get riches, which are an honor to youth; that
in the performance thereof your hearts may be raised higher in
pride.

And ye, ministers of the civil law, I counsel that you swerve not
from mutual confederacy with the ecclesiastical system. That, for
the sake of your honor, you strictly attend to your oaths; and put
in motion all laws and modes of punishments which may tend to compel
all kinds of people to submit to our precepts, which are in
opposition to the rules of Christ.

A SERMON TO THE PRIESTS.

It is well known that the Christian religion has been in the world
18 centuries, since she first visited the earth, and also that 300
yrs. of the first part of the time, altho’ she stood in opposition
to the powers of this world, and under cruel persecutions, yet she
mightily grew and flourished until about the 4th century, at which
time, a general revolution took place through the governing parts of
the earth and she was delivered from her persecution, being a great
church and standing on her own foundation. And from that day down to
this the priesthood of this religion (falsely so called) has been
preaching to us a sinful world, though broken in sect, but under one
lineage of ordination. Yet they have not brought the world, nor the
church to a state of perfection; but much to the contrary. For when
they first took the Christian church by the hand to lead her through
the ensuing ages of the world, she then stood on her own feet,
enjoying a well-united system of her own. And what is she now?...
she is now broken all to pieces and become a house divided against
herself. And this unparalleled circumstance has rendered it
necessary that the sinful world unto whom you, the said priests,
have been preaching, should have somewhat to preach unto you....

THE SUBSCRIBERS PETITION TO HIS COUNTRYMEN
FOR HIS RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES.

Whereas I am once more called to suffer for conscience’s sake, in
defense of the gospel of Christ; on the account of my son, who is
under age, in that it is against my conscience to send him into the
train-band. For which cause, I have sustained the loss of my only
cow that gave milk for my family; through the hands of William
Stewart, who came and took her from me and the same day sold her at
the post. Which circumstance, together with the infirmity of old
age, has prevented my making my usual defence at such occasion. I
have therefore thought proper and now do (for myself and in behalf
of all my brethren that shall stand manfully with me in defense of
the gospel of Christ) publish the following as a petition to my
countrymen for my rights and privileges; and especially to those
that have or shall have any hand in causing me to suffer.

_Fellow Countrymen_:

You esteem it a great blessing of heaven that you live in a
country of light, where your rights and privileges are not invaded
by a tyrannical Government. And for this great blessing of heaven do
you not feel yourselves under obligation of obedience to heaven’s
laws; to do unto all men as you would that men should do unto you?
Or which of you on whom our Lord hath bestowed ten thousand talents
should find his fellow servant that owed him fifty pence and take
him by the throat, saying, “Pay that thou owest me,” and, on
refusal, command his wife and children to be sold and payment to be
made?

Fellow Countrymen, this case between you and me I shall now lay open
before your eyes, seeing it is pending before the judgment seat of
the same Lord. Our Lord and Master hath commanded us not to hate our
enemies, like them of old times under the law of Moses. But hath,
under the dear gospel dispensation, commanded us, saying: “I say
unto you love your enemies, do good to them that hate you and pray
for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, and if any man
shall sue you at the law and take away your coat, forbid him not to
take your cloak also.” “If thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he
thirst, give him drink.” And again: “I say unto you that ye resist
not evil.”

For these, and many other like commands of our Saviour, Christ, I
have refused to bear arms against any man in defense of my rights
and privileges of this world. For which cause, you have now taken me
by the throat, saying: “Go break the laws of your Lord and Master.”
And because I have refused to obey man rather than God, you have
taken away the principal part of the support of my family and
commanded it to be sold at the post.

And thus you, my fellow-servants (under equal obligation of
obedience to the same laws of our Master) have invaded my rights and
privileges and robbed me of my living, for no other reason but
because I will not bear the sword to defend it. And if a servant
shall be thought worthy of punishment for transgressing his master’s
laws, of how much punishment shall he be thought worthy that shall
smite his fellow servant, because he will not partake with him in
his transgression? But I wist that through ignorance you have done
it, as have also your rulers; and for this cause do I hold the case
before you, that you may not stand in your own light, to stretch out
against me the sword of persecution; but agree with your adversary
whilst you are in the way with him. But if you shall refuse to hear
this my righteous cause and shall pursue your fellow servant that
owes you nothing, and who wishes you no evil, neither would hurt one
hair of your head, and although you take away his goods, yet he asks
them not again; but commits his cause to Him that shall judge
righteously; I say if you shall follow hard after him, as the
Egyptians did after Israel, God shall trouble your host and take off
your chariot wheels, so that you shall drive them heavily. For I
know, by experience, that no device shall stand against the counsel
of God; for I am not a stranger in this warfare, neither is it only
the loss of goods that I have suffered heretofore; but extreme
torments of body, while my life lay at stake under the threat of my
persecutors, and yet God, through his mighty power, has never
suffered me to flee before my enemies, but has brought me to the 83d
year of my age, though all my persecutors have been dead these many
years.

ALEXANDER ROGERS.

_January 7th, 1810. Waterford, New London County._

ROGERENE WRITINGS.

The following works of John Rogers, Sr., are most of them still
extant, although copies are very rare and command high prices. The
locality of copies known to the author of this history will be found
indicated:—

1. “_An Epistle to the Church Called Quakers._ New York. Printed
by William Bradford, 1705.”

2. “_An Epistle to the Seventh Day Baptists_,”—date unknown.

3. “_Treatise on Divorce._”

Copy of each of the above owned by H. Eugene Bolles of Boston.

4. “_An Epistle Sent from God to the World, Containing the Best
News that ever the World Heard. Transcribed by John Rogers, a
Servant of Jesus Christ._” The first edition must have been
printed in the author’s lifetime. The edition from which this
title was obtained was “_printed in New York for Elisha Stanbury,
1757_. 8vo. pp. 25.” We know not if this work is still extant.

5. “_John Rogers, a Servant of Jesus Christ, to any of the Flock
scattered Throughout New England._”

We know not at what date in the author’s lifetime above work was
published. The edition noted by Sabin (Dictionary of Books
relating to America) was “_Printed by James Franklin, at the
Printing Office under the Town School, 1754. 12 mo. pp. 79_.” A
copy of this work is to be found in Yale College Library, “_3rd
edition, Newport, 1754_.” A copy of same, owned by H. Eugene
Bolles of Boston, was published in Norwich, Conn., 1776, and was
the 4th edition.

6. “_A Midnight Cry from the Temple of God to the Ten Virgins_,”
printed by William Bradford, supposedly in 1705 and probably at
New York. A copy of this work is in Yale College Library. A copy
is also owned by H. Eugene Bolles,—title-page lacking.

7. “_Concerning the Two Ministrations, by John Rogers, a Servant
of Jesus Christ._” A copy owned by H. Eugene Bolles,—title-page
and date lacking.

8. “_Description of the True Shepherd, As Also Concerning Baptism
and the Lord’s Supper, Norwich, 1776, 4th Edition._” A copy owned
by H. Eugene Bolles.

9. “_Concerning the Ministration of the Law, and the Gospel,
Concerning Swearing and Concerning God’s Visitation by Sickness._”
Copy owned by H. Eugene Bolles,—date lacking.

10. “_Answer to A Book, by Benj. Wadsworth (the latter entitled
‘The Lord’s Day Proved to be the Christian Sabbath’). Printed for
the author, Boston, 1721._”

11. “_The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
unto Him to show unto his servants things which were to come to
pass; and Jesus Christ sent and signified it by his angels to his
servant John, and now by revelation hath opened the mystery
contained in said book unto his servant John Rogers, who hath
explained the same, for the edification and comfort of his Church
and People, after a long and dark night of apostacy. The
explanation being made so plain that the eye of every spiritual
reader may see how exactly things have come to pass, as were
foretold by the prophesy of this book, and may see by it all
things that are yet to come, not only to the end of this world,
but to the finishing of the world to come._” First printed in
Boston, 1720. “_Second New London edition, printed by Samuel
Green, for Henry Watrous and Alexander Rogers, 1817. 12 mo. pp.
248._”

The title of this work is liable to give the impression that the
author affects to himself explain the mystery of Revelation; but a
perusal of the book shows that not the slightest such attempt is
made. The entire work consists in expounding scripture by
scripture in the most legitimate and conscientious manner,
displaying not only a profound knowledge of the Old and New
Testaments, but extreme caution not to advance the slightest
personal explanation, supposition or theory. Like every other work
of this author, it gives proof of strong, clear and finely
balanced logical powers, combined with a plain and concise mode of
expression.

The title of the following is from Sabin. We know of no copy
extant:—

12. “_An Impartial Relation of an Open and Publick Dispute Agreed
Between Gurdon Saltonstall, Minister of the Town of New London,
and John Rogers of the Same Place. With the Circumstances leading
thereto, and the Consequences thereof. As also a relation of the
said Gurton Saltonstall’s securing a Judgment of Court of Six
Hundred Pounds and Cost of Court against said John Rogers, for
saying the said Saltonstall went to wave, shun or shift the said
Dispute agreed upon. The Truth of which waving, shunning or
shifting is here also evidently demonstrated. By John Rogers.
Printed for the Author in the year 1701. sm. 4to. pp. (6) 15._”

Probably printed at New York by William Bradford, or at
Philadelphia by Reynier Jansen. Title from Hildeburn’s Issues of
the Press in Pennsylvania. (Sabin.)

13. “_Treatise on Divorce._” Probably written about 1700. A copy
owned by H. Eugene Bolles.

Works of John Rogers, 2d:—

1. That the “_Book_” which John Rogers, 2d, was accused by the
General Court of publishing and selling “up and down the Colony,”
while his father was in prison, was written by himself, not by his
father, is probable. Its title or its contents are alike unknown
to us, not having as yet been discovered in any bibliographic
work, by which we judge that no copy or title is extant.

2. In Part I., Chapter I., has been seen the account of the
scourging inflicted upon John Rogers, 2d, John Bolles, and their
companions on occasion of the journey to the meeting at Lebanon in
1725; also the Proclamation which this punishment called forth
from Deputy Governor Jenks of Rhode Island. Mr. J. Backus, the
justice who was instrumental in securing the enactment of this
cruelty, made a reply to Governor Jenks in a pamphlet of
thirty-two pages, in which, in a lame and prevaricating manner, he
endeavored to justify this outrage. Upon this, John Rogers, 2d,
issued a pamphlet, bound with the pamphlet of J. Backus, stating
the exact circumstances of the case as opposed to the incorrect
statements of the justice, and entitled “_A Reply to J. Backus,
Esq. (as he calls himself), 1726_.” A copy of a book containing
the Reply of J. Backus to Governor Jenks and the Reply of J.
Bolles to this Reply of J. Backus is owned by H. Eugene Bolles.

3. “_Answer To A Book lately written by Peter Pratt, entitled ‘The
Prey taken from the Strong,’ Wherein by Mocks and Scoffs, together
with a great number of positive Falsehoods, the Author has greatly
abused John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, since his death.
By John Rogers. Printed in New York for the Author, 1726, and sold
at his house in New London. 8 vo. pp. (2) XXII._” Probably printed
by William Bradford. A copy owned by Connecticut Historical
Society in their Library at Hartford. A copy also owned by H.
Eugene Bolles.

4. “_An Answer to a Pamphlet (by Cotton Mather) entitled ‘A
Monitory Letter about the Maintenance of An Able and Faithful
Ministry.’ By John Rogers. New York. 1726._” (Printed by William
Bradford, supposedly). A copy of this book is in Yale College
Library.

Works by John Bolles still extant:—

A copy of each of the following books, with exception of the
eighth, is owned by H. Eugene Bolles of Boston.

1. “_Application to the General Court holden in New Haven—1728._”
A portion of the ending sentence in above pamphlet is as follows:—

“But we, on our parts, have had the witness of a good conscience
towards God in all our sufferings and loss of all these things”
(having recounted their persecutions) “and do make it our care to
live inoffensively towards all men, except in the case of Daniel,
Chap. 6, verse 5.”

2. “_Good News from a Far Country._” This is an argument to prove
that the Civil Government “have no authority from God to judge in
cases of Conscience.”

3. “_Answer to An Election Sermon preached by Nathaniel Eels._”

The last two published in one volume at Newport, 1749.

4. “_To Worship God in Spirit and In Truth._”

An Answer to same was published by Jacob Johnson (pastor of a
church in Groton, Conn.).

5. “_Reply to Jacob Johnson, by John Bolles._”

All three in Boston Library, bound together.

6. “_A Message to the General Court in Boston, 1754._”

Copy in Boston Library.

7. A tract entitled, “_True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to
no Flesh_.”

8. “_Persecutions in Boston and Connecticut Governments. Taken out
of Authors. Whereby it may be seen that a people may be deceived
under the highest conceit of religion, and thinking they are
worshipping God, when indeed they are worshipping the dragon and
persecuting the children of God that worship Him in spirit and in
truth. By John Bolles, New London. Printed for the author, 1758._”
A copy of this tract is owned by Mrs. Reed Watson of East Windsor,
Conn.

9. “_Answer to A Book entitled ‘The Christian Sabbath,’ by Mather
Byles, 1759._”

A copy of above work in Boston Library names John Bolles as
author. A copy of the same work in the New London Library is (in
its Introduction) distinctly ascribed to Joseph Bolles, son of
John Bolles. It was probably a joint work of father and son.

“_Bolles (J.) and Waterhouse (John) Concerning the Christian
Sabbath, also some Remarks upon a book written by Ebenezer
Frothingham. Printed for Joseph Bolles, 1757._” Title from Brinley
Catalogue. Know not if extant.

“_A Looking Glass for the Presbyterians of New London._” _By John
Rogers, 3d. Providence, 1767. 8vo._ See quotations in Appendix.
The style of this work is bright, vigorous and concise, comparing
well with the other Rogerene writings, not one of which is of an
inferior order.

INDEX.

The numbers against the names refer to the pages where the names
occur. A name has but a single reference to the page on which it
appears, though it may be repeated there; care should therefore be
taken to look for such repetition.

Adams, Eliphalet, 30, 48, 49, 214, 229, 247, 248, 257, 276, 283,
328

Allyn, Lyman, 213

Angell, George T., 317

Ashurst, Henry (Sir), 30

Backus, Joseph, 34, 58, 251, 260, 261, 329, 330, 363, 390, 391

Bancroft, George B., 106

Barber (Hist. Collections), 19, 63, 330, 339

Beckwith, Elizabeth, 169, 205, 206
Matthew, 169, 205, 206, 210

Beebe, Elizabeth, 157, 167, 170-172, 212, 216, 221, 230
Samuel, 25, 82, 157, 158, 162, 163, 167, 170, 172, 188, 205, 212,
216, 218, 220-224, 229, 230, 232

Beecher, Lyman, 96

Benedict (Hist. of the Baptists), 15

Benham, Henry, 281
Ida W., 314

Bickly, ——, 78

Bishop, Charles, 103
George, 86
Gilbert, 103
Henry, 103
John, 103

Blake (History N. L. first church), 162, 268, 331, 332, 340

Blinman, Rev. Mr., 125

Bolles, Anna, 376
Augustus, 94
David, 90, 92-94, 105
Delight R., 113
Ebenezer, 104, 274, 282, 288
Edwin C., 108
Enoch, 333
Frank, 106
Frederick D., 94-97, 111, 112
H. Eugene, 107, 109, 388-391
James A., 108
John, 32, 34, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91-93, 104, 105, 107-112, 114, 116,
213-215, 233, 234, 236, 237, 242, 244-248, 250, 252-255, 258,
259, 262, 263, 265, 267, 269, 270, 272, 274-277, 281-283, 285,
286, 289, 290, 296, 299-301, 301, 305, 306, 309, 314, 324,
325, 332, 337, 363, 369, 390-392
John A., 94, 105, 335-337
John R., 11, 13-17, 116, 247, 288 321, 376
John W., 111
Joseph, 34, 104, 213, 255, 258, 259, 267, 285, 287, 293, 296,
297, 308, 332, 333, 335, 337, 338, 369, 392
Joshua, 105, 110-112, 114, 247
Joshua A., 112
Lucius, 92, 108
Matthew, 92, 105, #111
Patience, 104
Sarah, 242, 244-246, 248-250, 255, 257, 267
Stephen, 114
Susannah, 94
Thomas, 88, 93, 213
William, 104, 105, 107, 111, 306
William P. (Dr.), 108
Zipporah, 88

Bowles, Samuel, 93, 96

Bownas, Samuel, 15, 181, 206-210, 309, 320, 362

Bradford, William, 209, 388, 390, 391

Bradstreet, Simon, 136, 137, 147, 148, 164

Branch, Anna H., 112
Mary L. B., 18, 112, 115

Brandagee, Augustus, 103, 107
Frank, 107
John, 108

Britton, Nathaniel, 111

Bruen, Obadiah, 124, 130

Burdick, Naomi, 148

Burnham (widow), 91

Burroughs (Rev.), 25

Bushnell (Rev.), 93

Byles, Mather (Rev.), 16, 48, 49, 86, 284-286, 289, 291-297, 308,
369, 371-373, 381, 392

Calvert [J. C.], 213

Camp, Elizabeth, 207
William, 207

Case and Banks, 61-63

Caulkins, Frances M. (Historian), 11, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27,
31, 40, 41, 56, 72, 82, 84, 88, 100, 102, 109, 162, 164, 165,
168, 175, 186, 196, 202, 204, 205, 215, 220, 232, 269, 271, 295,
325, 330, 338
Pamela, 102

Chamberlain, Peter, 150

Chapman, Nathan, 313
Samuel, 313, 334

Chappell, Alfred, 104
Frank, 103

Chew family, 102

Christophers, Christopher, 177, 223, 293
John, 177, 183
Richard, 245

Clarke, John, 22

Coit, Horace, 102

Coit (Justice), 373, 374, 378, 379

Cole, Sarah 68, 241

Comstock Stephen, 281

Congdon, Joseph B., 103

Cotton, John, 20

Coulter, John M., 110

Crandall, Amos, 107
John, 131, 327

Crouch, John, 334
Julia, 314
William, 300

Crump Richard, 107
William C., 102

Culver, Esther, 247, 248, 254, 299
John, 242, 247-249, 254, 263-265, 270, 272, 273, 299
Sarah, 34, 242, 248, 250

Cushman, Clarissa, 333

Darrow, Zadoc, 107

Davenport John, 86

Davis, Andrew, 34, 247, 248, 267, 275, 302

Denison, George, 75

Deshon, ——, 108
Henry, 103
John, 103

Dodge, Augustus C., 103
Henry, 103
Israel, 103
Nehemiah, 102, 103

Donham, ——, 159

Douglass, Ann, 253
Robert, 253

Dow, Lorenzo, 29

Edgecomb, John, 213

Edmundson, Edmund, 209 (see note, p. 396).
William, 15, 134, 135

Eels, Nathaniel, 392

Ely, William, 28

Field, Thomas P., 81-83, 97, 100, 331, 336, 337

Fitch, Thomas, 103

Fitzgerald, ——, 281

Fox, Bathsheba, 173, 185, 187, 194, 200, 230, 231
Samuel, 173, 179, 194, 231, 232, 241

Franklin, James, 388

Frink [Adam], 110

Frothingham, Ebenezer, 392

Gallup, John, 121

Gardner, Stephen, 277

Garrison, William L., 317

Garritt, Joshua, 110
Joshua B., 110

Gates, Josiah, 257, 258, 265

Gibson, ——, 149, 153
William, 154

Gilbert, Samuel, 64

Goddard, Calvin, 94

Green and Greene
Benjamin, 262, 277
Delight, 277
Samuel, 389
William, 277

Griswold, Elizabeth, 54, 55, 141, 142, 145, 146, 156, 160, 164,
169, 198, 206, 209, 216, 264, 266, 340

Griswold, Matthew, 54, 55, 62, 72, 98, 123-129, 132, 133, 144-146,
156, 160, 164, 167, 169, 205, 340

Hager, ——, 219, 220

Hall, Francis, 122

Hamilton, Jonas, 265

Hancox, Thomas, 64, 190

Harris, J. N., 102
Joseph, 277
Mary, 104
Peter, 272

Hastings, H. L., 317
John, 91

Haven, Henry P., 102
Urbane (Mrs.), 111

Hempstead, Joshua (Diary), 15, 122, 196, 217, 232, 239, 241, 243,
247, 255, 256, 269, 271, 272, 274-276, 280, 283, 322, 332, 335
Mary, 253
Robert, 170, 253

Hiscox, Thomas, 127, 132, 139, 140, 146, 147, 149

Hollister (Hist. of Conn.), 22

Horton, Joseph, 142

Howard, Roland B., 317

Howe, Julia Ward, 316, 317

Hubbard Clarke, 132
Samuel, 15, 127, 131, 132, 139, 146-149, 154, 159, 160

Hunter (Governor), 78

Hutchinson family, 317

Jackson, Joan, 171, 172, 220-225, 230
John, 32, 220, 223, 225

Jansen, Reynier, 390

Japhet (Indian), 130, 132, 139

Jenks, Joseph, 35, 36, 390, 391

Johnson, Charles, 113
Jacob, 392

Jones, Mary, 241

Jones, Robert, 68, 241

Keeney, John, 230, 232

Laborell, ——, 77

Lamb, ——, 273

Law, Jonathan, 77
Richard, 102

Lay, Edward, 121

Lee, Jason, 107

Leete (Governor), 150, 151

Lewis, Martha, 335

Lillie, Marion H., 112

Livermore, Mary A., 317

Livingston, John, 224, 232

Lockwood, Belva, 317

Loomis, Elias, 102
F. B., 102

Lord (Dr.), 326

Lynde, Nathaniel, 28

Man, Elisha, 58
Richard, 58

Mann, ——, 273
Mary, 35

Manwaring, Christopher, 102
Robert, 102
Robert A., 102

Marvin (Mrs.), 104

Mather, Cotton, 365, 391

Matthews, ——, 186, 187

McEwen, Abel M., 29, 30, 33, 48, 49, 51, 56, 98-102, 109, 114, 253,
336

McGinley, John, 112

Middleton, John, 108

Mumford, Stephen, 127

Neal Dan’l. (Hist. of N.E.), 87

Newcomb family, 104

Niles, John M., 94-97

Norton, Humphrey, 86

Noyes, James, 140
Moses, 184

Owaneco [Chief], 124, 166

Paine, Robert T., 317

Palmer, Christopher, 107
Elisha, 104
Frank, 104
George S., 104
Reuben, 104
Tyler, 104

Parker, Thomas, 121

Parnell, Delia S., 317

Pattison, Edward, 121

Peck, Charles H., 108
Ellen P., 108

Perkins, Anna, 102
Nathaniel, 103, 376

Perry, Amos, 112

Phillips, Andrew W., 110

Picket, John, 68

Plumb, Hannah, 272
John, 272
Peter, 272

Powell, Aaron M., 317

Pratt, Elizabeth, 54, 164
Peter, 15, 37, 38, 52-54, 57, 59, 61, 63-72, 136, 137, 145, 156,
160, 164, 201, 209, 210, 216, 241, 243, 248, 257, 278,
321-327, 368, 391

Prentice, Edward, 110
Elizabeth, 265

Prentis, John, 77, 79
Stephen, 164

Pynchon, John (Col.), 21, 299
John, 299

Ransford, Mary, 66, 67, 196-205, 207, 210, 214, 241, 323, 324, 326,
332, 336, 338

Ray (Justice), 68

Richards, Jane, 103

Rogers, Adam, 217
Alexander, 293, 300, 304, 387, 389
Anne, 300
Bathsheba, 22, 103, 112, 125, 140, 171, 172, 249, 264, 265
Daniel, 109
Delight, 277, 376
Elizabeth, 23, 102, 111, 125, 129, 131, 132, 136, 142, 144, 160,
164, 194, 300
George, 104
Gershom, 265
Gilbert, 281
James,[A]
Joanna, 241
John,[A]
Jonathan, 22, 23, 82, 131-133, 139, 142, 143, 148, 149, 153, 163,
166, 172, 174, 175, 188-190, 193, 215, 216, 230
Joseph, 124, 130, 142,144, 146, 154, 155, 163, 167, 174-176, 189,
207, 215, 240
Lucy, 102
Mary, 23, 143, 144, 241, 249, 265, 274
Naomi, 149, 154
Nathaniel, 293
Peter, 107, 108
President, 104
Samuel, 121, 124, 147, 153, 166, 187, 207, 232, 240, 272, 277,
281, 293, 333
Sarah 190, 241, 242,247, 248
William, 300
William A., 110
W. F. M., 107

-----

Footnote A:

This name occurs too often to make indexing of any value.

-----

Rowland, Elizabeth, 121
Samuel, 121, 124

Sabin (Dictionary of Books), 388, 390

Sachse, Julius F., 16, 275, 288

Saltonstall, Dudley, 271
Gurdon, 26, 28-31, 37, 41, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 60, 73, 76, 77,
79, 81, 82, 86, 164, 165, 167, 168, 173, 174, 176-178,
180-187, 191, 193, 194, 202, 207, 214, 215, 222, 224, 225,
228, 234, 236-238, 243, 257, 268, 271, 276, 283, 326, 331,
336-339, 374, 375, 377, 390
Nathaniel, 271
Richard, 164
Rosewell, 271

Saulsbury (Family Histories), 55

Savol, John, 277

Selwyn (Digest), 29

Smith, Anson, 110

Smith, Bathsheba, 23,25, 103, 125, 139, 142-144, 146, 154, 155,
163, 167, 170, 173, 180, 207
Clayton B., 107
Ely, 207
Hamilton, 110
James, 103, 167, 207, 231, 233, 237
John, 167, 231
Parker, 103
Richard, 125, 142, 154, 155, 231

Smith, Robert, 103
Samuel, 293

Stanbury, Elisha, 388

Stanton, Thomas, 124

Steer, Richard, 82, 188

Stewart, William, 386

Stow, Samuel, 184

Strickland, Peter, 105

Strong (Rev. Dr.), 93

Stubbins, Daniel, 62

Taber, Job, 104

Tanner, Abel, 107

Tarbox, Increase N., 121

Thrall, Charles U., 111

Thurston, B. B., 103, 111
Benjamin, 107

Trumbull (History of Conn.), 19, 20, 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 63, 326
J. H., 121

Tubbs, Mary, 62, 63

Turnbull (Memorials), 91

Turner, David, 111
David S., 111
Isabel, 104
Jennie, 112
Mary, 104
Patience, 104
Peter C., 104
Thomas, 104, 333

Uncas [Chief], 166

Underhill, John, 121

Wadsworth, Benjamin, 260, 352, 389

Waller, T. M., 103
Tracy, 107

Waterhouse, Waterus and Watrous
Amos, 334
Clarissa, 334
Content, 333
Esther, 254, 299, 312
Henry, 389
Jabez, 334
Jacob, 253
John, 104, 251-255, 258, 259, 263-266, 269, 270, 275, 283, 286,
290, 299, 300, 302, 304, 312, 313, 333, 392
Mary, 104
Rachel, 334
Timothy, 293, 300, 302-304, 313, 332, 333, 383
Walter, 269
William, 333, 334
Zacharia, 303, 304
Zephania, 302, 305, 308, 309, 312, 334

Watson, ——, 96
Amelia M., 111
Caleb, 184
Edith S., 111
Reed (Mrs.), 392

Way, Joanna, 25, 157, 158

Weair, Abraham, 273

Weaver, family, 104

West, Ebenezer, 58

Wetherell, ——, 23, 143
Daniel, 28, 177, 183

Whaley (Mrs.), 319

Whipple, Anne, 300

Whipple, Content, 300, 333
Daniel, 300
Elizabeth, 300
Enoch, 319
Hope, 300
Ira, 307
Jonathan, 313-315, 317-319
Noah, 300
Samuel, 299, 300
Silas, 300
Zacharia, 300
Zephania, 300
Zerah C., 314-316

Whitney, Isabel, 104

Williams, Anna B., 112

Winthrop (Governor), 21, 66, 113, 122, 123, 199, 213

Wolcott, [Alexander], (Dr.), 110
Henry, 98, 125, 129
Simon, 102, 129

Wood, John, 121

Woodbridge (Rev.), 332
Ephraim, 295
Timothy, 184

Woodward, John, 58

Wright (Justice), 241
William, 180, 181, 185-187, 190, 192, 193, 196, 219, 220

Young, John, 177
Thomas, 174, 177, 183, 194, 222

Note.—The Edmund Edmundson, referred to on page 209, should be
William Edmundson; also spelled Edmonson.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note

On p. 102, two references to a James Rogers are followed by
superscripted ‘4’ and ‘2’, which would seem to each denote a
separate James, presumably by generation.

On p. 333, the single footnote (numbered here as 190) had no anchor
in the text. It has been arbitrarily added near the top of the page,
after the first mention of the three variants of the name
‘Waterhouse’ described in the note.

Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been
corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and
line in the original. The following issues should be noted, along
with the resolutions.

109.23 the purpose for which the question was Added.
asked[.]

203.9 if she con[t]inue her refusal Inserted.

271.31 a good Christian [exaplary] in his Living _sic_:
exemplary?

302.27 with an instrument of [prim] obs. for
privet, a
shrub

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of Connecticut" ***

Home