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.