Footnote 74:

Probably shoes of his own manufacture.

-----

Footnote 75:

It is from the account of Mr. Bownas (conversation with John

Rogers) we gain knowledge that there were “goods” in the

wheelbarrow, which were offered for sale before the pulpit. The

court record mentions only the wheelbarrow. Mr. Bownas had

evidently a mixed recollection of this portion of John Roger’s

conversation (relating to work, etc., upon the first day Sabbath),

since he appears to suppose this was a thing that might have

happened more than once, whereas it was an extraordinary measure

suited to an extraordinary occasion, and one which would surely

receive court notice and record.

In his conversation with Mr. Bownas, John Rogers also said, in

this connection, “that the provocations he met with from the

priests, who stirred up the people and the mob against him, might

sometimes urge him further than he was afterwards easy with in

opposing them, but that when he kept his place he had

inexpressible comfort and peace in what he did;” adding, “the

wrath of man works not the righteousness of God.”

Upon this same Sunday, William Wright, “an Indian servant of John

Rogers,” makes a “disturbance,” “outside of the meeting house,” “in

time of worship.” Refusing to pay a fine for his misdemeanor, he is

whipped ten stripes on the naked body. (County Court Record.)

Mr. Saltonstall has one consolation for this certainly unexpected

style of entrance. He can hardly, have reckoned upon such a

stupendous move to aid in securing the long incarceration of his

opponent. The “Proclamation”[76] which John Rogers soon hangs out at

his prison window, to keep before the public his steadfast

determination to oppose the doctrines and measures of the ruling

church, is still further ground for the intended removal to Hartford

and trial before that court, which is soon effected through the

“Mittemus.” (Part I, Chapter II.)

Footnote 76:

“I John Rogers, a servant of Jesus Christ, here make an open

declaration of war against the great red dragon and against the

beast to which he gives power; and against the false church that

rides upon the beast; and against the false prophets who are

established by the dragon and the beast; and also a proclamation

of derision against the sword of the devil’s spirit, which is

prisons, stocks, whips, fines and revilings, all of which is to

defend the religion of devils.”

On the part of John Rogers, his procedure, from beginning to end,

indicates his knowledge of an important crisis, as regards the

Seventh Day cause, and his judgment that the boldest move possible

on his part is the wisest at this time.

[For many a year to come, there will be found no presentment at

court of any of the Rogerenes for servile work upon the first day of

the week. Nevertheless they do not escape. When it becomes doubtful

if juries will punish them; the town authorities may be instigated

to the task.

The wheelbarrow episode was an extreme measure adopted at a critical

time, when, after so long a cessation of violent measures, the

battle was begun anew under the leadership of Mr. Saltonstall.]

CHAPTER V.

1695.

In May, at a special session of the Superior Court, at Hartford,

John Rogers is tried upon the following charges:—

1. For that in New London, in Feb. last, thou didst lay thy hand

upon thy breast and say: This is the humane body of Christ, which

words are presumptuous, absurd and of a blasphemous nature.

2. For saying, concerning a wheelbarrow thou broughtest into the

meeting house about a week or fortnight before, that Christ drove

the wheelbarrow—an impious belying of Christ, accusing him to be

the author of sin and was on the Sabbath day.

3. Thou art presented for disturbing the congregation of N. London

on the Lord’s day, when they were in the public worship of God.

4. Also for saying in court that thou did’st nothing and had said

nothing but what thy Lord and Master sent thee to doe etc.[77]

which expressions were spoken in answer to the governor, who

reproved thee for disturbing God’s people in his day and worship.

Footnote 77:

The “&c.” is of the record.

The evidence against the prisoner in regard to these matters is

given by Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, Daniel Wetherell and John

Christophers, and by “an old man in New London prison,” who

testifies that he heard John Rogers say “that he was in Christ and

just and holy, and ministers would carry people to the devil.”

Stated in record that John Rogers owned to saying he was in Christ,

but denied the rest of the statement by the old man. He also denied

that he said Christ drove the wheelbarrow into the church.

Messrs. Saltonstall, Christophers and Wetherell testify that (“at

Mr. Thomas Young’s”) they saw John Rogers lay his hand on his

breast, and heard him say: “This is the humane body of Christ;” they

also heard him say in a “laughing,” or “as they thought in a

flouting way,” “brother Jesus and brother Paul.” Owned in court by

John Rogers “that he said his body was Christ’s” (note this exact

agreement with his son’s statement, Part I, Chapter II), also that

he used the term brother in regard to Christ and Paul.

The opinions of four ministers are taken as to the blasphemous

nature of said expressions. The names of these ministers are “Samuel

Stow, Moses Noyes, Timothy Woodbridge and Caleb Watson.” They judge

that the expression, “This is the humane body of Christ,” has a high

blasphemous reflection. The saying “brother Jesus is also a

presumptuous expression, in the manner of his saying it” (viz., as

rendered by Gurdon Saltonstall). “The saying that Christ drove the

wheelbarrow is an impious belying of Christ” (regardless of the

prisoner’s denial of having made any such statement). “The

reflections on our worship are a slanderous charge against the

generation of the righteous, and heretical and impious.”[78] They

also “apprehend that in every one of the expressions evidenced

against him there is a high and abominable profanation of the name

of Christ.”

Footnote 78:

Although the “Proclamation” put out at the prison window appears

(by absence on the court records) not to have figured in open

court, it was evidently in the minds of these priestly judges.

Verdict, guilty. Sentence:—

To be led forth to the place of execution with a rope about his

neck, and there to stand upon a ladder leaning against the

gallows, with the rope about his neck, for a quarter of an hour.

And for his evil speaking against the ordinances of God to pay a

fine of £5; for disturbing the congregation to be kept in prison

until he gives security to the value of £50 for his peaceable

behavior and non-disturbance of the people of God for the future

and until he pay to the keeper of the prison his just fees and

dues.

Here is set forth a term of imprisonment which can be ended only by

some change of policy on the part of the authorities; since it is

well known by those who have this matter in charge that John Rogers

never gives such security or bonds.

By this time, excitement and sympathy on the part of friends,

followers and relatives of the prisoner are undoubtedly at their

height, and it is probable that these people give somewhat free

expression to their indignation, especially regarding the charge of

blasphemy and the consequent ignominious punishment. Neither they

nor the prisoner expected other than severe measures regarding the

wheelbarrow affair, which was a very bold stroke of countermove in

an extraordinary emergency.

In June, close following the trial and punishment inflicted upon

John Rogers at Hartford, the New London meeting-house burns to the

ground.

But for the excitement among the dissenters, this disaster might be

attributed to some other cause; but under the circumstances it is a

convenient and plausible charge to lay at their door. About the same

time, also, Stonington meeting-house is desecrated by “daubing it

with filth.”

Bathsheba Fox, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright (the Indian

servant before referred to) are arraigned before the Superior Court

at Hartford, on suspicion of being “concerned in” both of the above

occurrences. The only evidence against John, Jr., and his aunt

Bathsheba is of a circumstantial character, to the effect that some

conversation transpired previous to these occurrences which it is

considered may have instigated the burning and desecration on the

part of others, notably of William Wright. The latter is convicted

of defiling the Stonington meeting-house.[79]

Footnote 79:

After diligent search, no evidence has been found of enmity on the

part of the Rogerenes towards the Stonington church.

It is probable that, in the height of their excitement over the

treatment John Rogers received at Hartford, Bathsheba, John, Jr.,

and others expressed great indignation against Mr. Saltonstall and

the New London church generally. Yet the burning of the

meeting-house was probably as much a surprise to them as to anyone,

and certainly as great a financial disaster; since upon them more

than upon others, by exorbitant seizure of property, must fall the

expense of a new edifice. This latter fact, as well as certainty

that suspicion and apprehension must surely fall in their quarter,

would naturally deter them from any such undertaking. Also,

retaliatory measures of this description are contrary to the

principles of this sect.[80]

Footnote 80:

Miss Caulkins says regarding this burning of the meeting-house:

“It was supposed to be an act of incendiarism, and public fame

attributed it to the followers of John Rogers. Several of these

people were arrested and tried for the crime, but it could not be

proved against them, and they may now without hesitation be

pronounced innocent. Public sympathy was enlisted on the other

side, and had they committed a deed which was then esteemed a high

degree of sacrilege, it is difficult to believe they could have

escaped exposure and penalty.”

At this same Superior Court session, John Rogers, Jr., and William

Wright are charged with having recently assisted in the escape from

the Hartford prison of a man, “Matthews,” who was condemned to

death.[81] William Wright is charged with assisting Matthews to

escape from prison, and John Rogers, Jr., is accused of conveying

him out of the colony. He appears to have been soon recaptured, and

is again in prison at the time these charges are preferred. This is

not the only instance in which John Rogers, Jr., is found running

great risk and displaying great courage in a cause which he deems

right before God, however criminal in the judgment of men.

Footnote 81:

The capital crime with which he was charged appears not to have

been well-proven, for which reason the condemned prisoner

petitioned that there might be a fuller investigation. (See _Book

of Crimes and Misdemeanors_, State Library.) The fact that,

although meriting severe punishment, this youth was not guilty to

the extent presumed by the penalty, is indicated by his after

reprieve.

For assisting in this escape, William Wright is to pay half the

charges incurred in recapturing Matthews. For “abusing” Stonington

meeting-house, for not acknowledging to have heard alleged

conversations among the Rogerses and their confederates in regard to

the burning of New London meeting-house, and for having made his

escape from justice (by which he appears to have recently escaped

from jail[82]), he is to be “sorely whipped” and returned to

Hartford prison.

Footnote 82:

Where he was doubtless confined for his “disturbance outside the

meeting house” in the recent countermove, the “ten stripes” being

too mild a punishment.

John Rogers, Jr., for being “conspicuously guilty of consuming New

London meeting house” (although no slightest evidence of such guilt

is recorded), “for having been in company with some who held a

discourse of burning said meeting house” (although no such discourse

has been proven), and “that he did encourage the Indian to fly far

enough” (this appears to refer to William Wright’s “escape from

justice”), and “for being active in conveying Matthews out of the

colony,” is placed under bond for trial. It is shown that his uncle,

Samuel Rogers, has appeared and given bail for him. (There is no

after record to show that such trial ever took place, and no

slightest mention of any further proceeding in the matter.) This act

of Samuel Rogers is one of the frequent evidences of cordial

friendship between John, Jr., and his uncle.

Bathsheba, for “devising and promoting” the firing of the

meeting-house, and the “defiling” of that at Stonington, is to pay a

fine of £10 or be severely whipped. This fine is probably paid by

Samuel Rogers. It certainly would not be paid by her. The sole

evidence against John, Jr., and Bathsheba is in the character of

vague rumors of indignant discourse relating to the recent moves

against John Rogers, Sr. No proof of any complicity is recorded.

John, Jr., and Bathsheba are freed, but William Wright remains in

Hartford jail with his master (and will continue there for three

years to come), not for burning the meeting-house, which is not

proven against him, nor for defiling that at Stonington (on

suspicion of which he has already been punished with the stripes);

not (save in part) for the charges incurred by the rescue of

Matthews, but (as will be evident three years later) for his averred

determination not to submit to the law regarding servile labor on

the first day of the week.

In the meantime, Mr. Saltonstall and his friends, who have recently

been congratulating themselves on the success of their scheme for

keeping John Rogers in Hartford jail, are gravely contemplating the

ashes of their meeting-house and the remnants of its new bell, with

still further uneasiness in regard to results like enough to ensue

from added distrainments of the nonconformists towards the building

of another edifice.

Nor is this all. There are prominent members of this very church who

have so long been witnesses of wrongs and provocations on the part

of the authorities towards the conscientious non-conformists, and

have seen these wrongs and provocations so increased of late, that

they are willing to join with representatives of those people in an

open remonstrance.

In October of this year, occurs the terrible and mysterious public

scourging of John Rogers at Hartford, which is best given in his own

words and those of his son (see Part I, Chapters II and III), of

which act, or cause for it, no slightest mention is to be found on

court records. All this is but the beginning of vengeance for his

continued refusal to bind himself to what the court terms “good

behavior.” Close following any such bonds, would be the institution

of such procedures against the Rogerenes as would tend to annihilate

their denomination. But so long as the dreaded countermove is to be

looked for, in times of extremity, some degree of caution must be

exercised, even by the rulers of Connecticut.

The “Remonstrance,” to which reference has been made, appears in

January of this year, and is issued by Capt. James Rogers, Richard

Steer, Samuel Beebe and Jonathan Rogers. Appended to it are many

names. Briefly stated, it is charged that the Congregational church

have been so accustomed to persecute those that dissent from them

“that they cannot forbear their old trade;” that the design of the

Act of Parliament for liberty to Presbyterians, Independents,

Quakers and Baptists, to worship according to the dictates of

conscience

“is violently opposed by some whose narrow principles, fierce

inclinations and self interest have wedded to a spirit of

persecution and an itch for domineering over their neighbors. That

the present actions of the authority show that the king has

nothing to do with this colony. That the compelling them to pay

towards the maintainance of a Congregational Minister is contrary

to law and therefore rapine and robbery. That the rights of

peaceable dissenters have been of late, by permission of the

authorities, violated, and that the authority has illegally

oppressed them.”

(Here is proof of recent unusual procedures by the town magistrates,

not only against the Rogerenes, but in regard to the quiet

dissenters on the Great Neck and elsewhere. This persecution has

been going on out of sight of the general public, by action of the

town authorities, since no County Court record appears. Undoubtedly

it was this revival of indignities that stirred John Rogers to his

bold move.)

The “emitters” of this paper are placed under bonds for appearance

at the County Court, where they are fined £5 each “for defamation of

their Majesties,” viz.: “the Gov. of Conn. and others in authority,”

as well as “breach of His Majesty’s peace and disquietude of his

liege people.”

The “emitters” appeal to the Superior Court, not because they expect

any favor from that quarter, but it keeps the cause before that

public in whose sense of justice is all their hope.

1697.

Before May of this year, and while another trial of the case

regarding the claim of Joseph to land awarded Jonathan is still in

progress, occurs the death of Joseph Rogers. It is not unlikely that

had both brothers lived they would have come to an amicable

adjustment of the difficulty; since the evident perplexity of those

charged with examination into the case, indicates reasonable

arguments upon either side, and thus a matter well fitted for

compromise.

Our glimpses of Joseph Rogers are meagre. He and his wife appear not

to have joined the Newport church, but were evidently members of the

church of which John Rogers was pastor. (We have seen the wife’s

baptism, Chapter II.) Yet, of late years, Joseph has been scarcely

more noticeable than Jonathan, as regards arraignment for labor on

the first day of the week, which, as in case of the latter, appears

to prove that his labor was not of an ostentatious character. That

he was steady, thrifty, industrious and enterprising is very

evident. He added largely, by purchase, to the lands given him by

his father, and had become proprietor of a saw-mill and corn-mill at

Lyme. He died intestate, and his widow, Sarah, administered on his

estate. Sarah Rogers now carries forward the suit in which her

husband was engaged. The court appears not unfavorable to her

presentation of the case; but, on account of a neglect on her part

in regard to certain technicalities, the trial comes to a pause,

and, through lack of further action on her part, the case is again

decided in favor of Jonathan.

In March, 1697, complaint is made to the Governor and Council

that John Rogers and William Wright, who were “to be kept

close prisoners,” are frequently permitted to walk at liberty,

and the complainants (names not stated) declare their extreme

dissatisfaction with the jailer and any that connive with him

in this matter. It is ordered that said persons be hereafter

kept close prisoners, and that the jailer or others who

disobey this order be dealt with according to law. Has John

Rogers made such friends with the prejudiced and cruel jailer

of 1694? Even so (see Part I., Chapter IV., for testimony of

Thomas Hancox, and Part I, Chapter II., for scourging of John

Rogers at Hartford and part of same jailer in this abuse).

In 1697, the General Court appoint a committee to revise the laws of

the colony and certain “reverent elders” to advise the persons

chosen in this affair,[83] and also “to advise this court in what

manner they ought to bear testimony against the irregular actions of

John Rogers in printing and publishing a book reputed scandalous and

heretical.”

Footnote 83:

A very distinct glimpse of the power given to ministers of the

standing order in state legislation.

John Rogers, Jr., is now twenty-three years of age, a young man of

brilliant parts and daring courage. Since he is the printer and

circulator of this book, he is probably also its author. In this

same month of May, “John Rogers, Jr.,” is “bound in a bond of £40”

“to appear at court” (Superior) “to answer what may be objected

against him for bringing a printed book or pamphlet into this colony

which was not licensed by authority, and for selling the same up and

down the colony, as also for other misdemeanors”—the nature of the

latter not indicated. No complaint being presented against him, he

is dismissed.

[Could a copy of this pamphlet be found, great light might be thrown

upon this stormy period, by revelation of the full circumstances

leading up to the desperate entry of John Rogers into the

meeting-house in 1694, the plot of Mr. Saltonstall and the

“Remonstrance in Behalf of Peaceable Dissenters.”

That this book, sold “up and down the colony” by John Rogers, Jr.,

was for the enlightenment of the people at large regarding the

cause, and lack of cause, for the long imprisonment and cruel

treatment of his father, with representation of the case for the

nonconformists, can scarcely be doubted. We can picture this

talented and manly youth going from place to place, eagerly seeking

and finding those who will listen to his eloquent appeal to buy and

read this tale of wrong and woe, in the almost single-handed

struggle for religious liberty in Connecticut.]

Does the little book create so much sympathy “up and down the

colony,” that it is no longer wise to keep John Rogers incarcerated,

or are his ecclesiastical enemies at last sated by his nearly four

years of close imprisonment in Hartford jail? However this may be,

at the October session of the Superior Court, 1697, John Rogers is

brought from prison and “set at liberty in open court,” “in

expectation that he will behave himself civilly and peaceably in the

future.” The promise of good behavior is not required of him, as

formerly, but in its place the “in expectation,” etc., which is not

their expectation at all, unless with the proviso that they

themselves observe due caution in the handling of him and his

followers. They are apparently mindful of public opinion and of the

little book.

William Wright is also brought from prison to this court. He stands

here, in the presence of this master, who has just been set at

liberty, awaiting his own turn to be freed. For more than three

years, these men have been comrades in Hartford prison. They dwelt

together at the home of James Rogers, Sr., the Indian a servant of

the latter, and, since his death, servant of the executor, John

Rogers. The master has been kind and trustful, the servant faithful

to a remarkable extent. But for signal proof of heroic allegiance to

this nonconformist, he had not been in prison at all.

The master is waiting that his servant may go with him from the

court-room as a free man. But no! As the ceremony proceeds, the

Indian is offered his freedom only on condition that he will promise

to “behave himself civilly and peaceably in future,” which would

include refraining from servile work upon the first day of the week.

They are demanding promises of the despised red man that they dare

not exact of the white man, who has no lack of money or of friends.

Well may the warm blood of this master spring crimson to cheek and

brow. But not alone the master, the servant himself. They would

compel him to desert his master! The blood of the Indian is a match

for that of the Saxon.

William Wright, standing in swarthy dignity before this worshipful

court, declines his freedom on terms not only unjust to himself, but

demanding infidelity to that master and that cause for which he has

been so ready to venture and to suffer. He declares before this

assembly that he will not submit to the law against servile labor on

the first day of the week, that said law “is a human invention,” and

that he will work upon the first day of the week so long as he

lives.

For this admirable fidelity to his religion and his friends, he is

sentenced to be returned to prison “until there shall be opportunity

to send him out of the colony on some vessel, as a dangerous

disturber of the peace,” and in case of his return he shall be

whipped and again transported.

The wonder is that John Rogers held his peace until the full

completion of this sentence. Had an outburst of indignation and

condemnation of this unjust sentence not been forthcoming, as this

faithful servant was being returned to the close imprisonment of

Hartford jail, then might it be said that John Rogers could, for

fear or favor, stand silent in the presence of injustice. For such

an outburst as this[84] John Rogers is immediately fined £5. This

“contempt of court” is briefly rendered on the records as follows:—

“John Rogers upon the above sentence being passed upon William

Wright behaved himself disorderly, in speaking without leave and

declaring that he did protest against the said sentence.”

Footnote 84:

The words spoken do not appear on record.

Since he never pays such fines (except through execution upon his

property) he is probably returned to prison with his faithful

servant, there to continue until this fine shall be cancelled.

Before the close of this year, Jonathan Rogers is accidentally

drowned in Long Island Sound. Our glimpses of this youngest son of

James Rogers have been slight and infrequent. That he possessed

firmness and independence, is shown by his resolution to continue

fully within the Newport church. The fact that this made no

break—other than upon religious points—with his Rogerene relatives

reveals both tact and an amiable and winning personality. In his

inventory are “cooper’s tools,” “carpenter’s tools” and “smith’s

tools,” indicating an enterprising man concerned in several

occupations, according to the fashion of his time.

1698.

When John Rogers is finally released from prison, the rancor with

which he is still pursued by Mr. Saltonstall, with intent to weaken

his financial power to continue his bold stand, is proven by the

preposterous suit instituted against him almost immediately

(Superior Court) for alleged defamation, in saying that he

(Saltonstall) agreed to hold a public argument with him (Rogers) on

certain points of scripture, which agreement said Saltonstall failed

to fulfil.[85] (This case has been fully presented in Part I.,

Chapter VI.)

Footnote 85:

It would be interesting to know exactly what doctrine or doctrines

were involved. By the occurrence of this suit so soon after John

Roger’s release from an imprisonment on charge of “Blasphemy,” it

would seem not unlikely that the Scripture expounded at the house

of Thomas Young in 1694 (probably Romans viii) might be that in

question. Public “disputes” of this kind were then and for many

years after in vogue in Connecticut.

(Motive for any such alleged statement, unless true, being lacking,

and a pamphlet being published not long after by John Rogers, giving

a detailed account of the whole cause and proceeding, by which the

exorbitant sum of £600 recovery for libel, with costs of court, was

levied upon him, it is presumable that enmity and court influence

were at the bottom of this suit, if not clearly on the surface.

Ecclesiastical power was dominant at this time in all the courts.

Ever back of Mr. Saltonstall stood this power, as intent as himself

upon the overthrow of this daring nonconformist. Could a copy of the

pamphlet by John Rogers,[86] giving details of that remarkable suit,

be found, much light would doubtless be cast upon this period in the

history of the Rogerenes.)

Footnote 86:

For full title, see publications of John Rogers, at end of

_Appendix_.

The death of Elizabeth, widow of James, has recently occurred.[87]

Footnote 87:

This fact is revealed by after procedures regarding settlement of

the residue of the estate, her death not being found on record.

John Rogers has changed his home from the Great Neck to Mamacock

farm, North Parish. His sister Bathsheba has also removed to the

North Parish, to a place called Fox’s Mills, from the mills owned

and carried on by her husband, Samuel Fox.

CHAPTER VI.

1698.

The long and close imprisonment of John Rogers in Hartford, attended

as it was with a bitter sense of wrong, would seem sufficient to

undermine the strongest constitution. To this was added anxiety

regarding home affairs, including charge of his father’s estate and

the care of his mother, which were devolving wholly upon his sister

Bathsheba. His mother’s death close following his release, and

business neglected during the past four years, must have borne hard

on his enfeebled system, to say nothing of annoyance and difficulty

on account of Mr. Saltonstall’s recovery of the £600. Although he

has gathered his family (son and servants) about him, at Mamacock

farm, and resumed the leadership of his Society, he can scarcely as

yet be the man he was four years ago.

It must be sweet to breathe again the open air of freedom, and such

air as blows over Mamacock; purest breezes from river and from sea,

fragrant with the breath of piney woods, of pastures filled with

flowers and herbs, and of fields of new-mown hay, mingled with the

wholesome odor of seaweed cast by the tide upon Mamacock shore.

Not far from the house, towards the river, in a broad hollow in the

greensward, bordered on the north by a wooded cliff and commanding a

view of the river and craggy Mamacock peninsula, is a clear, running

stream and pool of spring water. Here yet (1698) the Indians come as

of old, with free leave of the owner, to eat clams, as also on

Mamacock peninsula, at both of which places the powdered white

shells in the soil will verify the tradition for more than two

hundred years to come. In this river are fish to tempt the palate of

an epicure, and trout abound in the neighboring streams. A

strong-built, white-sailed boat is a part of this lovely scene, and

such a boat will still be found here for many years to come. (See

“Hempstead Diary” for mention of boat.)

1699.

If after the perilous trials, hardships and irritations of the past

four years, this man has a mind to enjoy life, as it comes to him at

Mamacock, it is not strange.

Nor is it strange that, among his house servants, he soon

particularly notices a young woman, lately arrived from the old

country, whose services he has bought for so long as will reimburse

him for payment of her passage. Perhaps the chief cause of his

interest is in the fact that she herself has taken a liking to the

half-saddened man who is her master. Surely he who could so attach

to himself a native Indian like William Wright, has traits to win

even the favor of a young woman. He is evidently genial and

indulgent with his servants, rather than haughty and censorious.

For twenty-five years he has been a widower, except that the grave

has not covered the wife of his youth. Through all these years, the

bitterest of his calumniators have not raised so much as a whisper

questioning his perfect fidelity to Elizabeth, who, since the

divorce, has been the wife of two other men and yet ever by this man

has been considered as rightfully his own. Such being the case, well

may his son wonder that he is becoming interested in this young

housemaid, Mary Ransford, even to showing some marked attentions,

which she receives with favor. She is a comely young woman, no

doubt, as well as lively and spirited. Her master will not object to

her having a mind of her own, especially when she displays due

indignation regarding the wholesale method of gathering the

minister’s and church rates. But when she goes so far as to

“threaten”[88] to pour scalding water on the head of the collector

of rates, as he appears at the front door upon that ever fruitless

errand, this master must give her a little lesson in the doctrine of

non-resistance, although his eyes may twinkle with covert humor at

her zeal. As for the rates, they must be taken out of the pasture.

Footnote 88:

The County Court record says Mary was fined for “threatening” to

pour scalding water on the head of the collector. Miss Caulkins

inadvertently says she was fined for “pouring” the same.

Evidently this attractive girl, Mary, is willing to assent to

anything this indulgent master believes to be right, taking as

kindly to his doctrines as to himself. A man of soundest

constitution, as proven from first to last, and of great

recuperative energy, he is not old at fifty-two, despite

imprisonments, stripes and ceaseless confiscations.

It soon becomes plain to John the younger that this is no ordinary

partiality for an attractive and devoted maid, but that his father

will ask this young woman to become his wife. For the first time,

there is a marked difference of opinion between father and son. Mary

is perfectly willing to pledge herself to this man, even under the

conditions desired. As for him, why should he longer remain single,

seeing there is no possible hope of reclaiming the wife whom he

still tenderly loves. There are arguments enough upon the other

side. John, Jr., presents them very forcibly, and especially in

regard to the inconsistency of putting any woman in his mother’s

place, so long as his father continues to declare that Elizabeth is

still, in reality, his wife.

To this latter and chief argument, the father replies that he shall

not put Mary in his first wife’s place, since that marriage has

never been annulled, by any law of God or of man. Did not God, in

the olden times, allow two kinds of wives, both truly wives, yet one

higher than the other? Under the singular circumstances of this

case, being still bound to Elizabeth by the law of God, yet

separated from her by the will of men, he will marry Mary, yet not

as he married Elizabeth Griswold. He will openly and honorably marry

her, yet put no woman in the place of his first wife. To this Mary

agrees.

It is but another outcome of this man’s character. He fears God and

God alone. He takes very little thought as to what man may think or

do concerning him. Yet not by a hair’s breadth will he, if he knows

it, transgress any scriptural law. (In his after treatise “On

Divorce,” how well can be read between the lines the meditations and

conclusions of this period, and chiefly the fact that, in deciding

upon a second marriage, he in no wise admitted that Elizabeth

Griswold was not still his wife, although so held from him that he

might lawfully take another, although under the circumstances a

lesser, wife.[89])

Footnote 89:

In this treatise “On Divorce,” he shows that the New Testament

admits but one cause for divorce, and does not admit adultery as a

cause. Therefore (by inference), although, by her after marriages,

his first wife leads an adulterous life (see statement of his son,

Part I., Chapter IV.), he does not consider that this fact

releases him from his marriage bond. But since, by the law of God

(“Mosaic” and still prevailing in the time of Christ), a man was

allowed another than his first and chiefest wife, in taking Mary

Ransford for his wife under the forced separation from his first

wife, he breaks no law of God. Not that he so much as mentions

himself, Elizabeth or Mary in this treatise; but the above is

plainly inferable to those acquainted with his history at this

period. Since, in granting the divorce to Elizabeth, the court

left him free to marry again, he broke no civil law in taking

another wife.

Oppose this unpropitious plan as he may, the son, whose influence

has hitherto been paramount, cannot prevail to weaken his father’s

resolution. It is the old and frequent glamour that has bound men

and women in a spell from the beginning, making them blind to what

others see, and causing them to see that to which others are blind,

in the object of their choice. The fact that Mary returns John,

Jr.’s, pronounced opposition to the marriage with consequent

aversion to the spirited youth, does not necessarily injure her

standing with the father. There is but one person for whom

favoritism on her part is absolutely necessary. As is usual in such

cases, the matter goes on, despite all opposition. He who has so

often borne to his mother the tale of his father’s unfaltering

fidelity, must now acquaint her with this sudden engagement. To the

young, the new loves of older people are foolishness. But, in this

case, there is still another reason for John, Jr.’s, opposition to

this mid-life romance; it is sadly interfering with a very natural

intention of his own.

With his usual habit of unhesitatingly executing a plan as soon as

it is fully determined upon, John Rogers improves the opportunity

offered by the session of the County Court in New London, to present

himself with Mary before that assembly (June 6), where they take

each other, in the sight and hearing of all, as husband and wife;

he, furthermore, stating his reason for marrying her outside the

form prescribed by the colony, to which form he declares he attaches

no value, since it was not sufficient to secure his first wife to

him, although no valid cause was presented for the annulment of that

approved ceremony. To fully make this a well-authenticated marriage,

he gallantly escorts Mary to the house of the Governor (Mr.

Winthrop) and informs him that he has taken this young woman for his

wife. The governor politely wishes him much joy.[90]

Much as this second marriage might be lamented, from several points

of view, and much trouble as it brought upon both Mary and John,

Jr., by their irreconcilable disagreement, to say nothing of the

perplexities and sorrows which it inflicted upon John Rogers

himself, it is scarcely to be regretted by his biographer; since it

brings into bold prominence a striking, and wonderfully rare,

characteristic of this remarkable man, viz.: the most reverent and

careful deference to every known law of God, combined with total

indifference to any law of man not perfectly agreeing with the laws

of God.[91] Evidently, what the most august assembly of men that

could be gathered, or the most lofty earthly potentate, might think,

say or do, would to him be lighter than a feather, if such thought,

speech or act did not accord with the divine laws.

Footnote 90:

It may be left to legal judgment to decide whether this marriage

was not more in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law

than was the divorce granted by the General Court of Connecticut,

through no testimony save that of a wife, bent on divorce, against

her husband, regarding a matter which he had confided to her in

marital confidence; said divorce being granted in the very face of

the “we find not the bill” rendered by the grand jury in regard to

the charge made by the wife.

Footnote 91:

Everything involved in the command to “render to Cæsar,” etc.,

being a law of Christ, he held binding, as regarded ordinary civil

legislation.

1700.

By some agreement the house at Mamacock, cattle on the place, and

other farm property, are under the joint ownership of John, Sr., and

John, Jr.; the one has as much right to the house and the farm stock

as the other. It now appears that the junior partner has himself

been intending to furnish a mistress for the house at Mamacock. In

January, 1700, seven months after the marriage of his father, he

brings home his bride and is forced to place her in the awkward

position of one of two mistresses. The young woman who now enters

upon this highly romantic and gravely dramatic scene is one with

whom John Rogers, Sr., can find no fault, being none other than his

niece, Bathsheba, daughter of his faithful and beloved sister of the

same name.

In spite of the difficulties sure to ensue, John, Sr., cannot but

welcome this favorite niece to Mamacock. Not so with Mary. Whatever

estimable and attractive qualities the latter may possess, here is a

situation calculated to prove whether or not she is capable of the

amount of passion and jealousy that has so often transformed a

usually sensible and agreeable woman into the semblance of a

Jezebel. The birth of a son to Mary, at this trying period, does not

better the situation. Even so courageous a man as John Rogers might

well stand appalled at the probable consequences of this venturesome

marriage. When he brought Mary home and directed his servants to

obey her as their mistress,[92] he in no wise calculated upon her

being thus, even partially, set aside. He stands manfully by her, as

best he may, though with the evident intention that she shall

refrain from any abuse of his son’s rights in the case.

Footnote 92:

Mary’s account in her petition to the General Court, 1703. See

“Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Court Files.

Although Mary is fined 40_s_. by the County Court in June, for the

birth of her child, it is not declared illegitimate by the usual

form, the authorities being nonplussed by the fact she and John

Rogers so publicly took each other as husband and wife. She is not

called upon to declare who is the child’s father, nor is the latter

charged with its maintenance, as in cases of illegitimacy.

Evidently, John Rogers did not expect any court action, in the case

of so public a ceremony. He declines to pay a fine so disgraceful to

his wife and child, and appeals to the Superior Court. The court

decides that, since the fine was not accompanied by other due forms

of law, it is invalid, but refers the matter to the future

consideration of the County Court, which results in no further

action in regard to this child.

Mary is also summoned before this same June court and fined 10_s_.,

“for her wicked and notorious language to John Rogers, Jr.,”

evidently on complaint of the latter. In this crisis, her husband

presents himself at the court, partly in her defense and partly in

that of his son. He calls attention to a mark upon her face, which

he says she declares to have been inflicted by the hand of his son

John, during his own absence from home, and that upon this account

“she has become so enraged as to threaten the life of somebody, as

she has done before from time to time,” and he is “fearful that if

God or man do not prevent it,”[93] serious consequences may follow.

John, Jr., is fined 10_s._ on this evidence of his father. Although

the injury to Mary, as indicated by the fine, is nothing serious as

a wound, yet it proves how far the young man lost self-control in

this instance. John Rogers, Sr., objects to the fine imposed upon

Mary under these circumstances, but his statement before the court

is evidently intended not only as a defense of his son, but as a

check upon herself.

Footnote 93:

The statements in this paragraph are from an affidavit still

extant at New London, in the handwriting of John Rogers.

[There is the evidence of a no more partial witness than Peter Pratt

that John Rogers never complained, outside his own home, of the

domestic troubles resulting from this marriage.[94] In the above

instance, he was compelled, by the action of his son, to testify,

both in Mary’s defense and in excuse of his son. Upon this court

record and affidavit is founded Miss Caulkin’s statement that appeal

was made to the court to “quell domestic broils” arising from this

marriage. It is to the advantage of this history that the family

affairs of John Rogers were in this instance forced before the

public, since we may observe the manner in which the father and

husband endeavors to secure an impartial administration of justice,

and immunity of any one from harm.]

Footnote 94:

“Prey Taken from the Strong.”

However this marriage and its consequences may figure upon the

printed page of a less primitive period, they appear not to lessen

respect for this remarkable man in the eyes of his followers,

although these followers are persons of the highest moral character.

His blameless life as a single man for the last twenty-five years,

and his avowed reasons for taking another wife in the manner he has,

are known to all. Moreover, they find no word of God in

condemnation.

In this year, John Rogers publishes, in pamphlet form, an account of

the dispute agreed upon between himself and Mr. Saltonstall, telling

the particulars of that great extortion. (Would that a copy of this

might yet come to the light!)

1702.

In September, 1702, the County Court have a good opportunity to

exercise the “after consideration” recommended by the Superior Court

in 1700, which they improve by dealing with Mary, after the birth of

her second child, exactly as they are accustomed to deal with an

unmarried woman. Her presentment is in exactly the same wording, a

part of which calls upon her to declare under oath, before the

court, the name of the father of her child. To prevent their

carrying out this form, John Rogers is there in court, with his

six-months-old girl baby in his arms, to save it from this disgrace.

He has given Mary directions how to proceed, in order to supplement

his plan of breaking up the intended procedure. If she refuse to

take the oath and to declare John Rogers to be the father of her

child, the court will be baffled.[95]

Footnote 95:

See account of this court scene, by John Rogers, 2d. (Part I.,

Chapter V.).

Being ordered to take the oath, she is silent, as her husband has

enjoined, while he declares to the court that this her child in his

arms is his own. The court knows, as well as the man before them,

that his first marriage has not been annulled for any legal cause;

that he had reason to refuse a repetition of the ceremony. But while

those who make and administer laws may be allowed to ignore them

with impunity, lesser people must abide by them; least of all must

this man escape, who has imperilled the ecclesiasticism of the land.

They threaten Mary with stripes, if she continue her refusal to take

the oath. She looks from the judge to the man who stands, so earnest

and anxious, with the babe in his arms, bidding her not to take the

oath, declaring that, if she obey him, he will shield her from harm.

She knows he will do all that he can to protect her; but she has

seen marks of the stripes upon his own back; she knows how he has

sat for hours in the stocks, and been held for weary years in

prison. Can he rescue her from the stripes?

He sees her yielding and pleads with her, pleads that she will save

their child from this dishonor. The court sternly repeats the

threat. Again he promises to defend her, in case she will obey him;

but declares that, if she yield, branding his child as base-born,

herself as common, and himself a villain, he needs must hesitate,

hereafter, to own her as his wife.

She sees the court will not be trifled with. She knows that John

Rogers uses no idle words. Yet will it not be safer to brave his

displeasure than that of the court? She takes the oath, and declares

John Rogers to be the father of her child. The cloud grows dark upon

the father’s face. He folds his branded child against his heart and

goes his way. All this he risked to hold his first love first, in

seeming as in truth; has risked and lost.

The court proceeds as usual in cases of illegitimacy, pronouncing

John Rogers the father of the child, and ordering that he pay 2_s._

6_d._ per week towards its maintenance, until it is four years of

age. Mary is allowed until the end of the following month to pay the

usual fine of 40_s._, in case of non-payment of which she shall

receive ten stripes on the naked body. In the meantime, she is to be

detained in prison. Will John Rogers own his child to be

illegitimate by paying this fine? By no means.

1703.

To now take Mary back (even if so allowed by the authorities)[96]

would be to brand any other children in the same manner. To marry

her by the prescribed form would be to acknowledge these two

children to be illegitimate. Yet there is one thing that can be

done, and must be done speedily. Mary must be rescued from the

prison and thus saved from the lash. There are but two in all this

region who will risk an attempt like that. They are John Rogers and

his son. Mary escapes to Block Island.

Footnote 96:

Miss Caulkins states that Mary was threatened by this court with

heavy penalties if she returned to John Rogers. Although the

evidence of this has escaped our notice, Miss Caulkins doubtless

came across such evidence.

After a safe period has elapsed, Mary is returned from Block Island

to New London. Her children are placed with her, somewhere in the

town, to give the more effect to her Petition to the General Court,

which is presented early in May. It is a long and pathetic document

(still to be seen in “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in the State

Library, at Hartford), narrating the manner of her marriage to John

Rogers; his taking her home and “ordering his servants to be

conformable and obedient” to her; the trouble they had, “especially

myself,” on account of the displeasure of John, Jr., at the

marriage; a description of her presentment at court for her second

child; her compliance with the court’s importunity, although her

husband stood there “with it in his arms,” and how the result had

made their children “base-born,” by which her “husband” says he is

“grossly abused;” since “he took me in his heart and declared me so

to be his wife before the world, and so owned by all the neighbors.”

She beseeches that the sentence of the court be annulled; so that,

“we may live together as husband and wife lawful and orderly,” “that

the blessing of God be upon us, and your Honor, for making peace and

reconciliation between us, may have an everlasting reward.” Dated in

“New London, May 12, 1703.”

The court takes no notice of this appeal. Mary is returned to Block

Island and the children to Mamacock. Proof will appear, however,

that she is not forgotten nor neglected. Even after her marriage to

another man, and years after this hopeless separation, she will say

nothing but good of him who first called her his wife and acted

faithfully towards her a husband’s part.

[Miss Caulkins states that, some months before this period, John

Rogers “made an almost insane attempt” to regain his former wife

Elizabeth, wife of Matthew Beckwith. This statement is founded upon

a writ against John Rogers on complaint of Matthew Beckwith (Jan.

1702-3), accusing John Rogers of laying hands on Elizabeth,

declaring her to be his wife and that he would have her in spite of

Matthew Beckwith. The historian should ever look below the mere face

of things. For more than twenty-five years, John Rogers has known

that Elizabeth, married or unmarried, would not return to him,

pledged as he was to his chosen cause. He is, at this particular

date, not yet fully separated from Mary, but holding himself ready

to take her back, in case a petition to the General Court should by

any possibility result favorably. This and another complaint of

Matthew Beckwith—the latter in June, 1703—to the effect that he was

“afraid of his life of John Rogers”[97] indicate some dramatic

meeting between John Rogers and “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew

Griswold,” in the presence of Matthew Beckwith, the incidents

attendant upon which have displeased the latter and led him to

resolve that John Rogers shall be publicly punished for assuming to

express any ownership in his, Matthew Beckwith’s, wife.

Any meeting between John Rogers and Elizabeth Griswold could not

fail of being dramatic. What exact circumstances were here involved

is unknown; what attitude was taken by the woman, when these two men

were at the same time in her presence, it is impossible to

determine. But it is in no way derogatory to the character of John

Rogers, that in meeting this wife of his youth, he gives striking

proof of his undying affection. Ignoring her marriage to the man

before him, forgetful, for the time being, even of Mary, blind to

all save the woman he loves above all, he lays his hand upon

Elizabeth, and says she is, and shall be, his. Under such

circumstances, Matthew Beckwith takes his revenge in legal

proceedings. When summoned before the court, John Rogers defends his

right to say that Matthew Beckwith’s wife—so-called—is still his

own, knowing full well the court will fine him for contempt, which

process follows (County Court Record).]

Footnote 97:

This “afraid of my life” is a common expression, and was

especially so formerly, by way of emphasis. Matthew Beckwith could

not have been actually afraid of his life in regard to a man whose

principles did not allow of the slightest show of physical force

in dealing with an opponent. Although the court record says that

John Rogers “used threatening words against Matthew Beckwith,” on

presentation by Matthew Beckwith’s complaint, this does not prove

any intention of physical injury.

John Rogers is fifty-five years of age at this date, and Matthew

Beckwith sixty-six. Elizabeth is about fifty.

In this year, a fine of 10_s._ is imposed upon Samuel Beebe (Seventh

Day Baptist) for ploughing on the first day of the week (County

Court Record). Without doubt the Rogerenes (Seventh Day Baptists

also) have done the same thing. At this period John Rogers may do

whatever he pleases of this sort on the first day of the week.[98]

Nearly four years of imprisonment in Hartford jail, the little book

“sold up and down” the colony, and many a tale narrated of his

bravery and sufferings in the cause of religious liberty, have won

for him such popular sympathy that those who aid and abet

ecclesiastical rule in the state councils, are not as yet venturing

to resume stringent proceedings against the Rogerenes. The signal

failure to secure a promise of “good behavior” from the Rogerene

leader is also a prominent factor in the situation.

Footnote 98:

This by his statement to Mr. Bownas at this date.

Although there is no sign that Capt. James Rogers and his wife have

receded from their nonconformity, their son, James, Jr., has married

a member of the Congregational church and taken the half-way

covenant. He is prominent in the community and has political

ambitions, the attainment of which would be impossible for one of a

nonconformist persuasion. To have won this talented young man, must

be counted a signal victory by Mr. Saltonstall. Samuel, son of

Samuel, has also married a member of the Congregational church. He

is continuing the bakery on its old scale, has landed interests in

the neighboring country, and is surveyor for the town of New London.

Samuel, son of Joseph, now of Westerly, has become a member of the

Congregational church, while his older brother James, an

enterprising young man, is of the Baptist persuasion.

James Smith, son of Bathsheba, is a close follower of his uncle

John, although his sister Elizabeth (married to William Camp) is a

member of the Congregational church, in which her children are

baptized.

During the respite from graver cares, John Rogers has enough to busy

him at Mamacock, outside of his duties as preacher and pastor, in

caring for the place (in unison with John, Jr.) and other business

interests, making shoes, writing books, and attending to the welfare

and training of his two little children, to whom he must be both

father and mother. John and Bathsheba have a third child now. So

here are five little ones in the home at Mamacock. And there is Mary

at Block Island. She came from across the sea, and is likely to have

only the one friend in America.

In this eventful year, John Rogers visits Samuel Bownas, a Quaker

who is detained in jail at Hempstead, L. I., on a false accusation.

Through the whole of a long conversation with the Quaker (narrated

by the latter in his Journal), he makes no reference to Mary, the

prominent figure in this period of his history. It is not his

purpose to reveal to outsiders that, although he and Mary are

separated, he has not resigned her to her fate.

Mr. Bownas states that John Rogers is

“chief elder of that Society called by other people Quaker

Baptists, as imagining (though falsely) that both in their

principles and doctrines they are one with us; whereas they

differed from us in these material particulars, viz.: about the

seventh day Sabbath, in use of water in baptism to grown persons,

using the ceremony of bread and wine in communion, and also of

anointing the sick with oil; nor did they admit of the light of

truth or manifestation of the Spirit but only to believers,

alleging Scripture for the whole.”

Upon this latter point, Mr. Bownas and his visitor have a long

discussion. On any subject but the Quaker doctrines, Mr. Bownas

appears not particularly interested, for which reason he does not

furnish much information in regard to the part of the conversation

relating to John Roger’s sufferings for conscience’ sake, which he

avers to have been a portion of the converse, and which would have

been more edifying to many than the doctrinal views of the Quakers

so fully expounded to John Rogers, which are presented to the reader

through this account of their conversation.

John Rogers is quoted as describing the manner in which the young

people in his Society are trained in knowledge and study of the

Scriptures,[99] and stating that women “gifted by the Spirit” are

encouraged to take part in their meetings.

Of the Rogerenes, Mr. Bownas says: “They bore a noble testimony

against fighting, swearing, vain compliments and the superstitious

observation of days.”

Although John Rogers, in this narration, is represented as fluent in

speech, he is also shown capable of preserving complete silence,

allowing a person who is presenting views exactly the opposite of

his own to go on uninterrupted, rather than present counter views to

no purpose. He is also shown ready to concede much to the Quaker,

expresses no annoyance at the other’s very positive stand, and even

admits possible mistakes on his own part.

Footnote 99:

This shows us that at a date long prior to the time when we shall

find a sturdy band of Rogerene youth, of Rogers and of Bolles

blood, on Quaker Hill, there was no lack of young people in

training to carry forward this cause.

In short, the picture given of John Rogers by the Quaker, although

less particular than could be desired, is that of a genial, friendly

man, discussing questions with great fairness, and without

excitement. When he requests Mr. Bownas, if he ever sees Edmund

Edmundson, to convey to him his sincere sorrow for having argued

against his views that night at Hartford (see Chapter I), the

natural gentleman shows plainly in the man. Possibly, his own

opinions on the subject of that discussion may have changed.

1705.

There is still a refreshing respite from persecution, beyond the

minister’s rates and minor prosecutions carried on by the town

magistrates (of which latter there is so seldom any clear view), and

no attempt to disturb any of the meetings of the Congregational

church.

In this year, John Rogers publishes his book entitled “An Epistle to

the Church called Quakers.” This work, while heartily assenting to

many of the Quaker doctrines, is an earnest and logical appeal to

these people against the setting aside of such express commands of

Christ as the ceremony of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In this

same year he issues “The Midnight Cry” from the same press (William

Bradford, New York).

At this time, as for some five years previous, a youth by the name

of Peter Pratt is a frequent inmate of the family at Mamacock. This

is none other than the son of Elizabeth Griswold by her second

husband. Elizabeth could not keep her son John from fellowship with

his father, and it appears that she cannot keep from the same

fellowship her son by Peter Pratt. This is not wholly explainable by

the fact that Peter admires and is fond of his half-brother, John

(see Part I., Chapter IV.). Were not the senior master at Mamacock

genial and hospitable, Peter Pratt’s freedom at this house could not

be of the character described (by himself), neither would he be

likely (as is, by his own account, afterwards the case) to espouse

the cause of John Rogers, Sr., so heartily as to receive baptism at

his hands, and go so far in that following as to be imprisoned with

other Rogerenes.

According to his own statement, this young man was present at the

County Court in 1699, when John Rogers appeared there with Mary

Ransford and took her for his wife. He seems at that time to have

been studying law in New London, and making Mamacock his

headquarters. He had every opportunity to know and judge regarding

John Rogers at that exact period. To this young man must also have

been known the particulars which led to the complaint of Matthew

Beckwith, his step-father, concerning John Rogers.[100] Had Peter

Pratt disapproved of either of these occurrences it would have

prevented his affiliation with this man. Evidently, nothing known or

heard by him concerning John Rogers, Sr., has availed to diminish

his respect for him or prevent a readiness to listen to his

teachings. (He admits that at this period he “knew no reason why

John Rogers was not a good man.”)[101]

Footnote 100:

He makes no mention of this occurrence in his book.

Footnote 101:

“Prey Taken from the Strong.”

We have seen proof, by statement of Mr. Bownas, that in 1703 John

Rogers was still a faithful observer of the Seventh Day Sabbath. But

in the Introduction to his Epistle to the Seventh Day Baptists,

written, according to date of publication, about 1705, he states

that by continual study of the New Testament, he has become

convinced that Christ Himself is the Sabbath of His church, having

nailed to His cross all the former ordinances (Col. xi, 14), that,

therefore, adherence to the Jewish Sabbath, or any so-called sacred

day, is out of keeping with the new dispensation. “Let no man,

therefore, judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of an holy-day,

or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath.”—(Col. xi, 16.) He also

states that as soon as he came to this conclusion he gave up the

Seventh Day Sabbath and wrote this Epistle to his former brethren of

that church.

After the above conclusion on the part of John Rogers and his

Society, the Rogerenes begin to hold their meetings on the first day

of the week, in conformity with the common custom. Yet, much as they

might enjoy making this a day of entire rest, were there not an

“idolatrous” law declaring that sacred which was not so declared in

the Scriptures, they still consider it their duty to bear sufficient

witness against the assumption of its sanctity.

While the Rogerenes were preaching New Testament doctrines

antagonistic to the state church, on Saturday, when the rest of the

world were busy with secular affairs, not many outsiders would be

likely to attend their meetings; but now that these doctrines are

preached and taught on Sunday, in public meetings of the

Rogerenes,[102] many more are likely to attend these services, and

so become interested in this departure, despite the fine that might

be risked by such attendance.

Yet there are no indications that any new measures have been

adopted, on account of this change on the part of the Rogerenes.

They are at least ceasing labor for that portion of the day devoted

to religious services, which may possibly appear a hopeful

indication, to the view of the ecclesiastical party. At all events,

by the silence of the court records and the testimony of John

Bolles, the Rogerenes are not now being persecuted as formerly, and

we shall find these peaceful conditions existing for some years to

come.

Footnote 102:

Their services for preaching and expounding were always public;

their (evening) meetings for prayer and praise were for believers,

after the manner of the early church.

CHAPTER VII.

1707.

June 4, of this year, a complaint is made by Samuel Beebe against

John Rogers, as executor of his father’s estate, for detaining from

Samuel Beebe three cows, which, by the codicil of the will, were to

be given to his wife Elizabeth after the death of her mother. The

cows are evidently given up to him, since nothing further concerning

them appears on the court records.

The peculiarity about this complaint is that, while claiming what is

given to his wife under the codicil, he is still (as will be seen)

firmly adhering to the irregular proceeding of the widow in 1692,

which ignores the codicil to the extent of attempting a distribution

of the movables—and also a portion of the residue of land—in a

manner entirely different from that directed by the testator in this

codicil.

The determination of Samuel Beebe to, if possible, prevent the

executor from carrying out the full intent of the testator is

sufficient to account not only for the detention of the cows, but

for the much longer delay made by the executors, John and Bathsheba,

in attempting to make the final division indicated by the codicil, a

preliminary to which division would be their taking for themselves

all of the household goods.[103]

Footnote 103:

“Things about the house John and Bathsheba must take them first

before the others be divided.”—_Codicil._

No complaint against the Rogerenes has appeared on the court records

during the nine years previous to this date. While this does not

imply entire cessation of hostilities on the part of the town

authorities, it shows that none of these have been of such a

character as to call forth the countermove, which is punishable by

the County Court.

John Rogers has recently attracted to his following one of the

most intelligent and upright men in the community, who has been a

member of the Congregational church. This is John Bolles, a young,

married man, only son of Mr. Thomas Bolles, one of the wealthiest

and most exemplary of the early settlers of this place, himself

oldest son of Joseph Bolles (of an ancient family of the English

gentry—Nottinghamshire), who emigrated to Maine previous to 1640,

and by the death of his two elder brothers became heir to the

family estates in England.[104]

Footnote 104:

The pedigree of John Bolles in the male line is traceable to time

of the Conqueror. The name is on the Roll of Battle Abbey.

Mr. Thomas Bolles settled in New London at the earnest solicitation

of Governor Winthrop.[105]

Footnote 105:

The Thomas Bolles place is now the Lyman Allyn farm on the Norwich

road. Just south of the Allyn house is the site of an old well. By

this well stood the house of Thomas Bolles, where occurred the

murder of his wife and two children, leaving only the babe, John.

(For particulars, see “Bolles Genealogy.”)

The wife of John Bolles is daughter of Mr. John Edgecomb, another

prominent planter of New London, also of gentle blood of Old

England. (Edgecombs of Mount Edgecomb.)

As his father’s sole heir and by right of his wife in her father’s

estate, as well as through his own prudence and enterprise, this

young man is destined to be one of the richest men in New London.

On account of a remarkable escape from death while an infant in

arms, John Bolles was led, while still a youth, to pledge himself to

the service of God. Now, after careful examination into the

doctrines of John Rogers, he devotes himself, in obedience to his

youthful pledge, reverently and enthusiastically to that cause. (See

Part I., Chapter VI.)

The home farm of John Bolles is half a mile south of that of John

Rogers, on the same (Norwich) road, on a height of land known as

Foxen’s Hill (later Bolles Hill), directly overlooking the town of

New London, with a further view of Long Island Sound.[106] He has

lived for years in the near neighborhood of John Rogers, and has

been one of his personal acquaintances and friends. If this

extremely conscientious young man knew of any cause to distrust the

character of this reformer, even in the days when most maligned on

account of his independent marriage to Mary Ransford, he would not

(in this year) have been baptized by him and entered upon the

unpopular and perilous career of one of his followers.

Footnote 106:

His house stood just south of present house of Mr. Calvert. His

father’s home farm was about one-fourth of a mile south of this

point.

John Bolles states in his “True Liberty of Conscience” that although

the Rogerenes had not been molested of late, yet directly after his

leaving the Congregational church for that of the Rogerenes (1707)

serious persecutions were reinstituted, directed against the

performance of labor upon the first day of the week.[107] Evidently

something must be done, to prevent an influence that can still reach

within the precincts of the Congregational church, to draw forth to

this heretical following some of its brightest and its best.

Footnote 107:

John Bolles further says in regard to the persecution he suffered

upon joining the Rogerenes: “God gave me such a cheerful spirit in

this warfare, that when I had not the knowledge that the

grand-jury man saw me at work on said day, I would inform against

myself before witness, till they gave out and let me plow and cart

and do whatsoever I have occasion on that day.”

Here will be recognized an imitation of the early policy of the

Rogerenes in time of persecution, a policy likely to have been

recommended to all their followers; viz.: to give their opponents

so much more trouble when molesting them than when letting them

alone that the institution of a season of severe measures will be

the less liable to occur. This is the policy recognizable in the

countermove, so sure to take place in time of severe persecution.

1708.

In this year Mr. Saltonstall, so popular among the clergy and other

leading men of Connecticut, as a staunch and able advocate of

Congregational church supremacy, is elected governor, and is

succeeded in the ministry at New London by Rev. Eliphalet Adams.

Dissenters of several kinds are now so numerous that it is

impossible to disregard their combined outcry against ecclesiastical

tyranny. Accordingly, in this year we find the General Court

enacting a law allowing those “who soberly dissent” to worship in

their own way, “without any let, hindrance or molestation whatever,”

provided it be well understood that none are excused from paying

their full share towards the maintenance of the Congregational and

Presbyterian ministry, and that those who desire the liberty of

worshipping in other than the Congregational or Presbyterian way,

shall “qualify themselves at the County Court, according to an Act,

made in the first year of the late King William and Mary, granting

liberty of worshipping God in a way separate from that by law

established.”

The Rogerenes do not derive any benefit from this law; John Rogers

and his followers being resolved never to countenance, by their

obedience, any civil law whatever which dictates in regard to the

worship of God.[108] Baptists, Episcopalians and Seventh Day

Baptists build meeting-houses,[109] qualify themselves under this

law and hold their services in peace; but meetings of the Rogerenes

are still held without legal sanction and so without legal

protection.

Footnote 108:

It will be seen that as late as 1716 (see Chapter IX.), so

prominent a Rogerene as John Bolles was even declared to be

“ignorant of this law.” That he ignored it, with all other

ecclesiastical laws, is more likely to have been the case.

Footnote 109:

A Baptist church springs up at Groton and one on the Great Neck.

The Baptist edifice on the Great Neck (“Pepper Box”) is used in an

admirably liberal and pacific manner by both the regular Baptists

and the Seventh Day Baptists. The leading members of these two

friendly societies are largely of Rogers descent;—descendants of

Captain James and of Joseph being of the first-day persuasion, and

those of Jonathan of the seventh day, as a rule. Since the history

of these societies on the Great Neck has been given by Miss

Caulkins more largely than would be possible in this work, the

reader is referred to the “History of New London” for particulars

regarding them.

In this year, the Saybrook Platform, conceived by Mr. Saltonstall

and his ecclesiastic friends, becomes a law. By this device, church

and state are firmly welded together. Although certain dissenters

may secure leave to worship in their own way in their own churches

(provided they will pay for both their own and the Congregational

ministry), the indifferent or irreligious masses are still subject

to the dominant church, as regards compulsory Congregational church

attendance and money tribute. All yield except the Rogerenes, who

heroically go their way, regardless of menace or punishment. They

see their cattle and other property sold at outcrys to satisfy

extortion, yet hold their peace, unless some action threatening the

continuance of their following of New Testament teachings

necessitates an extraordinary show of nonconformity, by way of

unusual Sunday labor, or perhaps even brings out the countermove,

that last but most efficient means of defense.

1709.

In this year, James Rogers, Jr., is admitted to the bar, and soon

becomes a prominent lawyer of this vicinity.

An attempt is made at this time to stop the preaching and

proselyting of John Rogers. Among his followers at this period is

Peter Pratt, son of Elizabeth Griswold (see Chapter VI.). This young

man now experiences the great necessity for courage and endurance on

the part of anyone who would faithfully adhere to Rogerene

principles; since he is imprisoned with other Rogerenes.[110]

Footnote 110:

For what cause or by what pretense this imprisonment occurs does

not appear. It is revealed by a statement made by Peter Pratt

himself. (“Prey Taken from the Strong.”) In referring to his being

imprisoned with other Rogerenes, he speaks of his wife as a bride

at that time. He was married in 1709.

Judging from past indications, the fact of their having gained a new

convert from a prominent family of the Congregational persuasion is

at any time a sufficient cause for the institution of severer

measures against this sect.

But other annoyances are now at hand for John Rogers. There is the

still unsettled residue of the estate, so difficult of adjustment on

account of the claims of Samuel Beebe, (under the widow’s “deed” of

1692. See Chapter III.), which will be put forward as soon as any

move is made by the executor to divide the residue of the estate

according to the codicil. These claims include certain young slaves,

coming under the head of “moveables” belonging to the estate of

James Rogers, of which movables, by the widow’s deed, one-half was

to be given, after her decease, to her daughter Elizabeth Beebe, and

one-half to her son Jonathan.

During his executorship, John Rogers has freed a number of his

father’s slaves. Two of these slaves (called “servants”) are

mentioned in the inventory of the estate, in 1688, where it is

stated that they are to be free in three years. The bond-children

owned by James Rogers, as yet of no value, were not mentioned in the

will or inventory, but they appear to have been classed with that

residue of the estate (“moveables”) which, by the terms of the

codicil, was to be divided between John, Bathsheba and James.

[There are indications that not only had John Rogers come to regard

the keeping of slaves in life bondage as contrary to the teachings

of the New Testament, in the line of the Golden Rule; but that his

father had come to the same conclusion, and had made plans for

freeing all his slaves. His charge to his children—John, Bathsheba

and James—in the codicil to his will, to “remember Adam,” one of his

two able-bodied negro slaves, appears to have been understood by

them as referring equally to the children of this slave; since one

of the young slaves freed by the executor is proven—by “Hempstead

Diary”—to be Adam, son of this Adam (each being called “Adam

Rogers”). It is probable that others of the young slaves were Adam’s

children, while some of them were children of the negro woman,

Hager, who, as stated in inventory, was to be freed in three years.]

By various documents on record, it is evident that the

administration of the estate by John has gone on in a very

methodical manner and strictly according to the tenor of the will.

The order of the committee (1693) was that, after the death of the

widow, the remainder of the estate should be “disposed of according

to the terms of the will,” of which the codicil was the part that

referred to this residue. The codicil, however, does not contain

explicit directions regarding the movable estate, but simply says

that John and Bathsheba are to “take” the things about the house,

“before the others be divided,” and that—after the cows have been

given to Elizabeth—the remainder of the movable estate “whatsoever”

be divided by John, Bathsheba and James among themselves. The

residue of land legacies is clearly defined. The whole estate having

been placed under the executorship of John and Bathsheba, presumes

their continuance in that office until the final settlement. This is

evidently the expectation of the court and of those concerned, as

they continue to be called executors.

No fault has hitherto been found with the executorship, save in the

demand of Samuel Beebe for the cows. Yet the executor is well aware

of the irregular claims pending, and by his father’s request will be

held from making appeal to the court against any unjust action which

Samuel Beebe may take in this matter.

At this crisis, Captain James comes to the rescue, evidently by aid

and advice of his son James, the young lawyer. A method is devised

by which the irregular claims may be thwarted and, at the same time,

the testator’s request in regard to legal proceedings on the part of

any of his children be respected.

The first indication of the above intention is found in June of this

year, when Captain James makes over to his son James all interest

which he himself has in “all the moveable estate” left by his

father.

The next step is for James, Jr., to enter complaint (July 13) at the

Probate Court that the settlement of the residue (“moveables”) of

his grandfather’s estate—after the death of the widow—has not been

attended to by “the formality of the law.” Being himself interested

in the estate, he desires that “such methods may be taken _as the

law directs_.” The court, upon consideration of this enigma, finds

that the estate was to be settled not by legal form, but by

agreement among the children to John’s executorship, as approved by

the General Court. The Probate Court, therefore, declines to meddle

in the matter.

James, Jr., now enters complaint, at the Superior Court, that John

Rogers and Bathsheba Fox, administrators on the estate of James

Rogers,

“have not administered thereon according to the order of the law,

and have not ever yet made and exhibited in the Court of Probates,

and recorded there, any inventory of said estate; but dispose

thereof at their own will and pleasure without giving account.”

The manner of administration of John and Bathsheba regarding the

movables and lack of exhibition of any inventory of same to the

court, have been in entire accordance with the direction of the

testator. Moreover, had James Rogers, Jr., held to the mode of

division directed in the codicil, his share would be much larger

than by the method now being sought. An ulterior motive is evident

from the start. The court undoubtedly understands the full meaning

of this outwardly peculiar procedure on the part of James, Jr.

The Superior Court directs the Probate Court to issue a writ

summoning John and Bathsheba to render an inventory, etc.,

“according to law,” and if they do not appear, then the Court of

Probate shall grant letters of administration to James, Jr., “or

some other person,” “to the end that a just division be made.”

John and Bathsheba not complying with a demand so contrary to the

directions given them by their father, James, Jr., is appointed

executor, to complete the settlement, viz.: the division of the

movable estate. He now presents an inventory, which inventory is

dated as having been taken in 1788; just after the death of James

Rogers. The movables, of which he claims that John Rogers should

render an account, figure at £100 value. Although the original

inventory presented mentions an Indian and his negro wife and a

mulatto man, each having about three years to serve, also a negro

woman “deaf and dumb,” no mention is made of these or of any other

slaves by the new executor, and no complaint is made regarding the

fact that they and their children have been freed by the former

executor.

While this is going on, John and Bathsheba appear in court in regard

to Hager, a former slave of John Rogers (the negro wife mentioned in

the inventory), who has lost the written discharge from bondage that

was given to her years before by the executors. John and Bathsheba

testify that, shortly before his decease, their father agreed with

William Wright to sell him his negro slave, Hager, for a certain

term of service on the part of William Wright, and at the time of

this agreement gave her to him for his wife, providing for the

couple “a wedding dinner.” They also say that long before this

agreement with William Wright, their father and mother had promised

Hager her freedom at the age of thirty-six years.

“William Wright having been banished before his term of service had

expired, we, being intrusted by our deceased father with his whole

estate, seeing the support of the woman and her children was more

than her service, gave her a written discharge, upon condition she

should support her younger children” (her eldest son to be free at

the age of twenty-one), “which said writing she hath lost.” She is

herewith again discharged, with all her children except the above,

“by these presents.”

The next move by James, Jr., is to attach property belonging to the

late executor to the amount of the value of the aforesaid

“moveables.” Thus, with no appeal to court on the part of any of the

children of James Rogers, and with no breach of trust on the part of

John and Bathsheba, the residue of the estate passes fully into the

hands of the new executor, and is clearly minus any of the “negroes”

which the irregular claimants were prepared to demand.

By this time, Samuel Beebe sees that the young lawyer contemplates

nothing short of preventing every irregular claim which he may

venture to make. Samuel Beebe is no more in need of servants, lands

or goods than are the other heirs, having a good estate from his own

father and another by gifts to his wife from her father. He is now

living at Plumb Island, and in so showy a way that he is called

“King Beebe.”—(_Caulkins._) It is apparently, on his part, a game

played mainly for the zest of it; as Samuel Beebe might sail a boat

of his own against one of Captain James or that at Mamacock. But

alas! a young wife and mother is to become a victim of this game.

For about four years now, a young negro woman named Joan, who was

born of a slave of James Rogers, Sr., has been the wife of a free

colored man named John Jackson, a servant of John Rogers, living in

a house on the Mamacock farm. Joan has, by Jackson, one child, a

son, about two years old, and is expecting another. While yet a

child, Joan was given by the widow of James Rogers to Elizabeth

Beebe, in payment of the legacy of £10, which latter was to be paid

to said Elizabeth Beebe (according to the terms of the will), by

said widow, “with consent of my son John.” Said executor not seeing

fit to transfer Joan to a man who kept slaves in life bondage, and

not doubting that the arrangements for settlement of the estate

according to the will and codicil would fully sustain him in not

allowing this claim of Samuel Beebe by the unwarranted and

unsanctioned act of his mother, freed Joan in due course of time, as

he did the rest of the young slaves.

1710.

About October 1, 1710, Samuel Beebe, in some manner not indicated by

the court records, succeeds in securing Joan Jackson and her boy and

detaining them at Plumb Island.

Unfortunately, and apparently very carelessly (as shown in Chapter

IV.), the committee, in their decision of 1693, instead of using the

wording of the will in regard to the payment of the £10 by the

widow, viz.: “with consent of my son John,” rendered it that the £10

be paid to Elizabeth “by John and Bathsheba, when the widow so

order.”

September 19, 1710, James, Jr., enters complaint at the County Court

that Samuel Beebe is illegally detaining from him, present executor

of his grandfather’s estate, a negro woman, named Joan, who was the

property of James Rogers at the time of his death. The defendant

claims that the woman was part of the legacy of £10 given his wife.

The court decides in favor of Samuel Beebe, its decision being

grounded on the blunder of the committee of division, in 1693.

James, Jr., appeals to the Superior Court. The latter court decides

that if the settlement of the committee in 1693, in accordance with

the terms of the will,

“were in point of law a sufficient conveyance of the negro woman

to Eliz. Beebe, without John Roger’s consent to said conveyance by

his mother, then the jury find the case for Samuel Beebe; but if

the consent of John Rogers was, in point of law, under said

settlement by said committee, necessary to such a conveyance, then

they find the woman for John Rogers.”

This calls for the decision of Judge Gurdon Saltonstall, the

archenemy of John Rogers, who, naturally, ignores the blunder of the

committee and adjudges Joan and her child to Samuel Beebe, as slaves

for life.

Two months later, a second child is born to Joan, at Plumb Island, a

babe its father may neither claim nor behold. Nearly six months more

drag slowly by, in great and grave suspense.

1711.

As for Joan herself, she is not likely to settle down at once, if

ever, in meek submission to her fate. Woman-like, her first thought

would be to escape, if possible, to her husband and the kind masters

at Mamacock, being sure that if she is once upon that shore, they

will not willingly return her to Plumb Island. She cannot be

supposed to consider, in so dire a strait, the peril they would

incur by harboring a runaway slave, such as she now is, by the

decision of the Superior Court.

In the latter part of May, 1711, John Rogers, Sr., is in the

vicinity of Long Island, and also on the mainland of New York.

Southold, L.I., is a common stopping-place for boats from New

London. His friend, Mr. Thomas Young, is now of that place.

If John Rogers landed at Southold, Joan might learn of this fact and

act upon it. But by nightfall the man for whose assistance she may

have hoped is at his objective point on the mainland. She finds

conveyance of some kind, however; for, this same night, she escapes

from Plumb Island with her two children. Upon his return to

Mamacock, the next day, John Rogers finds them there and is accused

of so poor a trick as the bringing them to his own home. He may have

had in view some scheme for their escape; but if so, his plans have

been thwarted by Joan’s imprudence, through her eagerness to reach

her friends in New London.

At the New London County Court, June 5, Christopher Christophers,

one of the chief enemies of John Rogers, being one of the judges,

Samuel Beebe enters complaint against John Rogers and John Jackson,

“on suspicion that they stole Joan and her two children out of his

house the night of May 29th last.” The accused men, being now before

the court, plead not guilty to the charge of taking Joan from Plumb

Island; but acknowledge that, after her arrival at Mamacock, they

conveyed her into Rhode Island. Samuel Beebe owns that the woman and

her children have since been returned to him by the governor of

Rhode Island, and that he has them now.

Upon no further evidence of theft than the fact of the presence of

Joan and her children at Mamacock and their conveyance into Rhode

Island by John Rogers and John Jackson, and having given the accused

parties but a few days to secure testimony, also without regard to

the fact that the alleged theft occurred in another colony, or that

it is a capital offense, on the law book, this court, without a

jury, adjudges John Rogers and John Jackson guilty of stealing Joan

and her children, and sentence them to pay twice the amount of the

worth of said slaves (£40) and costs of prosecution. In case John

Jackson be not able to pay his part, he shall serve Samuel Beebe or

his assignee at the rate of £5 per year until the whole amount is

cancelled. So that Samuel Beebe not only has the negroes fast, but

£40 reward for his complaint against John Rogers.

The record further states that

“John Rogers, upon hearing the above sentence, did, in open court,

declare the said sentence to be rebellion against her Majesty, and

that it was injustice, and declared that this court are rebels

against her Majesty,”

for which contempt, said court

“order said Rogers to give bond of £200 for his appearance at the

Superior Court, in Oct. next, to answer for his offense and for

keeping her Majesty’s peace and being in good behavior in the

meantime, and for want of sureties, to be committed to prison

until he shall be released by due form of law.”

Two of the justices on this occasion are bitter enemies of John

Rogers, while the Superior Court that is to try him for contempt has

Governor Saltonstall for its judge.

Thus, of the two men not proven to have committed this offense, one

departs from the court-room to a long imprisonment, to say nothing

of an execution upon his property, and the other to four years of

slavery, under dictation of the man who has stolen his wife and

children, unless he be able to pay the large sum of £20 for his

freedom.

In this dilemma, John Rogers makes an effort for justice. He

presents a Petition to the court, in which he objects to a trial in

the County Court of New London for a crime alleged to have been

committed within the jurisdiction of Long Island. He asks for a

trial in the latter jurisdiction, where he can produce evidence to

clear himself from any such charge. No attention is paid to this

Petition. (See John Roger’s account of this affair, Part I., Chapter

V.)

On no account will John Rogers go back of this charge of

man-stealing, to enter suit regarding Samuel Beebe’s seizure of this

freed woman; that would be bringing before the court something

relating to the estate of his father. Evidently, for the same

reason, he who fears not at his peril to denounce an unjust decision

in any court of the land, has made no complaint in regard to the so

plainly prejudiced award of Joan to Samuel Beebe, by the judge of

the Superior Court. Even thus can this man hold his peace, when he

will.

The next move, as revealed by the records, is the sale (June 13,

1711) of Joan and her children “for their natural life” to John

Livingston (a prominent attorney); one of the children “a boy of

three years named John,” the other “a girl of six months,” to all of

whom Samuel Beebe says he “has full right by judgment of court,

viz., for the woman and one negro she had with her when she came”

(that is, when, in some way, he secured her) “and the youngest born

since.”

Captain James Rogers appears to be as much opposed as his brother

John to keeping persons in lifelong bondage.[111] James, Jr., will

take any legal action yet possible to rescue Joan and her children.

Footnote 111:

In his own large inventory is no mention of any slaves.

Among other things, outspoken dissent to certain state church

doctrines and usages will be far less prominent with John Rogers

behind the bars. Popular opinion appears to have proven unfavorable

to continued persecution on religious grounds, ever since John, Jr.,

went “up and down the colony” selling that little book. The case

regarding Joan has been a fortunate happening for Governor

Saltonstall and his friends.

Although, by the sentence, the trial for contempt was to be before

the Superior Court at New Haven in October, we find it taking place

at a session of this court in New London, September 25, in the

meeting-house.[112]

Footnote 112:

In lieu of other suitable accommodation in New London this edifice

continued to be used, for some time, for sessions of this

court.—(For John Roger’s account of this trial, see Part I.,

Chapter V.)

John Rogers asks to be tried by a jury, choosing the one then

sitting, but Judge Saltonstall denies him trial by jury,—John Rogers

has too many friends in these parts. There must be no means of

escape for the opponent he has so often bled before, and would fain

bleed to the death. He pronounces judgment in a fine of £20 and

costs of prosecution, and a bond of £100 “for good behavior” until

the March session of the same court, with imprisonment at prisoner’s

expense,—unless he give surety for the bond, which Gurdon

Saltonstall well knows he will not do, thereby to acknowledge that

he has been “misbehaving” himself. All this is (by the court record)

because John Rogers “falsely and slanderously declared in court that

the sentence of said court against himself and John Jackson was

‘rebellion against her Majesty.’”

They examine the deeds to find suitable land to take in execution

for this fine of £20, and discovering such land, by Upper Alewife

Cove, that was sold to “John Rogers,” they proceed to claim it for

the Colony of Connecticut. John, Jr., in vain assures them that he

himself bought this land, with his own money, and it is also in vain

that he presents the original deed, in the copying of which, upon

the town records, the clerk omitted the word Jr. Nor will his

father’s after affirmation in court that he himself made out this

deed, and wrote the Jr. therein, secure its release. Moreover, as

John Rogers himself declares (Part I., Chapter VI.), they kept the

original deed presented in proof, and, after John, Jr., had paid

them their price for the redemption of this land, viz., £20—as

proven by court record—they took this very land again for another

fine of £20.[113] Here are indications of the bitterest venom on the

part of those in power, at this period, yet no complaint on the

records regarding “servile labor, etc.,” or baptisms, or

“blasphemy,” or any other nonconformity.

By these signs it may be judged that never was the influence of John

Rogers more feared than at this very period, yet never also were the

authorities more cautious regarding complaints and actions against

him on avowedly ecclesiastical grounds.

Footnote 113:

Why seizures at this time are confined to this piece of land, can

only be conjectured. At this date, the Mamacock land still lay

under the attachment of the new executor, James, Jr., and so was

safe from this sort of seizure. The attachment by James, Jr., was

evidently a mere blind, and it served a double purpose.

CHAPTER VIII.

1711.

We left John Rogers on his way back to prison, there to remain until

the March term of the Superior Court, because he would not promise

“good behavior” (“as if I had misbehaved myself.” Part I., Chapter

V.).

Against tyranny in high places, there is ever at hand the one

highest appeal, that to the public at large, where is always in

reserve a good measure of sympathy and sense of justice. Not only is

our hero stirred through and through by this personal and

ecclesiastical thrust, under guise of righteous administration of

law, on the part of an official who has for so many years occupied

the position of a reverend preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ;

but he knows well of this last appeal, which has heretofore stood

him in good stead against the bitter edicts of these half—if not

wholly—ecclesiastical courts. Though as yet there are no newspapers,

there are eyes to see, ears to hear, and tongues to carry fast and

far.

What recks this Samson of their paltry “goal”? Somehow, without show

of physical force (the least sign of which would surely have been

entered on the court record), he makes the sheriff quail. The

lightning in his eyes, perchance, the deep tones of a voice that

never breathes an oath, even to swear by in a court; uttering

ominous words to some such effect as that he “will seal his quarrel

with his blood.” Should he attempt escape from the sheriff his death

could be accomplished, then and there.

The sheriff returns to the court-room (meeting-house) and reports to

the court that John Rogers is conducting himself in a “furious”

manner, “threatening that the jail shall not hold him and that he

will seal his quarrel with his blood”; the sheriff “fears he will

break out of jail and do mischief to some of her Majesty’s

subjects.” What subject but himself, through punishment which can be

inflicted upon him for breaking away from an officer, which is a

capital crime on the law book.

The quickly forthcoming order of the court (Judge Saltonstall) that

John Rogers shall be placed in irons at need, “for preventing

mischief,” is but the beginning of the plot now in contemplation.

By further order of the judge and governor (one and the same) John

Rogers is to be conducted from the ordinary prison to the “inner”

prison.[114] The latter is not yet finished, and is half a mile from

the house of the jailer. It has as yet no underpinning, but stands

above the ground on blocks. The green planks of which the floor was

made are much shrunken, leaving large cracks for the entrance of the

wind, and there is “an open window towards the northwest.” There is

no fireplace, nor any means for making a fire; moreover, by the

orders, no fire is to be allowed this prisoner.[114] It is October

and unusually cold and stormy for this time of year.

Footnote 114:

For John Roger’s description of this prison and his imprisonment,

see Part I., Chapter V.

How does John Rogers, Jr., manage to communicate with his father in

this place? He must scale the high fence surrounding the prison

yard, to make his way to the “open window” of the prison, whose

grates will not admit the passage of any fuel, even if a place could

be found within in which to make a fire. This son comes, under cover

of the darkness, to give such aid and comfort as he may, and

especially in the cold nights, which indicates that he contrives to

furnish some slight means of warmth.

Until November 16 of this unusually inclement season, John Rogers,

at the age of sixty-three, is a solitary prisoner in this inner

prison, with such apology for a fire as his son can provide, by

coming two miles after dark to the prison window.

Governor Saltonstall, sitting beside his beaming hearth, already

furnished with its huge back-log, gives no pitiful thought to the

man whom he has denied an honest trial, and now forbids so much as a

fire to keep him from death’s door.

On the bitter cold night of November 16, John, Jr., coming the long

two miles over the rough Mohegan road, and making his way, by

scaling the prison fence, to the grated, open window, finds his

father incapable of the usual intelligent response. Over the fence

again he hurries, and out into the streets of the sleeping town,

calling loudly at the sheriff’s house: “You have murdered my father

in prison to-night!!!” “The Authority has murdered my father!!!”

(County Court Record.) Not only are the sheriff, his instigators and

their sympathizers aroused by this loud and ringing cry of alarm in

the dead of night, but also some of the many who are friendly to the

prisoner. These latter spring with alacrity from their beds, at the

news that John Rogers is dead, or dying, on this wild night, in the

distant and fireless inner prison, through which the bitter winds

are whistling.

Mr. Adams, the minister, a man of a kind heart, despite

ecclesiastical fidelity, cannot turn a deaf ear to this report

concerning the imprisoned dissenter. He and his wife show their

humanity by sending a bottle of wine and a bottle of cordial to the

sufferer. At the popular demand, the captive, almost senseless with

cold and the malady resulting therefrom, is conveyed to the warm

house of the sheriff,[115] where he at length revives.

Footnote 115:

This house is a tavern, and has in it the ordinary prison. It is

near the Mill Cove.

John Rogers, Jr., is brought before the County Court in New London a

fortnight later, on charge of making a disturbance in the night, and

fined £3. He is granted a review at the court to be held in June,

and required to give bonds for “good behavior,” until his trial

before the said court shall occur. Refusing to acknowledge, by

giving the required bond, that he has done anything wrong, he is

consigned to jail until session of the June court.

At this same November court, we find several other cases relating to

this history. Samuel Beebe again demands of Capt. James Rogers the

land made over to himself by the irregular “deed” of the widow. He

and John Keeney and wife (formerly wife of Jonathan Rogers) make

claim to all the “moveables” by the same document. These cases go

against the plaintiffs. Samuel Beebe appeals to the Superior Court.

At this court, also, James, Jr., makes another effort for poor Joan.

The case having already been settled on one presentment, he bases

his complaint upon different grounds. He says that, in the preceding

June, Samuel Beebe brought a suit against John and Bathsheba,

previous administrators, for possession of Joan, on plea that she

was given to Elizabeth Beebe by the widow as part payment of the

legacy of £10; but that for Samuel Beebe to make claim of John and

Bathsheba at that date—he himself being at said date executor of the

estate in place of John Rogers—or for John and Bathsheba to appear

on a court summons to answer such complaint of Samuel Beebe was

irregular procedure. He states that, at the time Samuel Beebe

declares this disposal of Joan by the widow to have been made, the

latter was incapable of managing any business, or even of taking

care of herself, and was under the guardianship of John and

Bathsheba, according to the intent of the testator; also, by order

of the court, they were her guardians and the managers of the

estate; so that she had no right to dispose of Joan, neither had any

possession of her at the time. He avers that by John and Bathsheba

illegally joining a false issue with Samuel Beebe, in not reminding

the court that they were no longer executors,[116] Joan had been

adjudged to Samuel Beebe and taken by execution. He demands Joan

with damages. It is a good case, but of course it fails. The court

is not willing to reverse its former decision. James, Jr., appeals

to the Superior Court. But it will be useless to ask the judge of

that court to alter a decision by means of which he has been able to

incarcerate his opponent. (The case is not brought before the

Superior Court, but apparently dropped as a useless endeavor.)

Footnote 116:

They could not so remind the court, it being contrary to the will

for them to give up their executorship, or to have anything to do

with the court.

Late in this month of November, occurs the death of Bathsheba

(Rogers) Fox.[117] She has been heroically faithful to the departure

instituted in 1674, only, at the last, to see this beloved brother

again in the iron clutches of ecclesiastical hatred, he who would

have been among the first to hasten to her bedside. How bitter to

him, in those last days of his devoted sister, must have been the

cruel bonds that held him at a distance, while she went down to

death.

Footnote 117:

The esteem and affection in which Bathsheba was held by her

husband, Samuel Fox, may be estimated by the fact that he not only

gave valuable lands to her sons by Richard Smith in her lifetime,

but, although he had married again, left by will, sixteen years

after her death, to her sons by the name of Smith, yet living

(James and John), £40 each, and to her three daughters by Richard

Smith, £10 each.

1712.

Under date of March 7th of this year, we find a deed of gift[118] of

some land (adjoining Mamacock farm) from John, Sr., to John, Jr.,

with the statement therein that this gift is to make up to his son

for the land that had been taken from the latter for a fine of £20

imposed upon himself (Part I., Chapter V.), also for a choice cow

and a considerable number of sheep that had been taken from his son

to satisfy like claims against himself. He states that this gift is

also to stand as a testimony of his appreciation of the fact that

this son who

“was taken from me in his infancy, upon the account of my

differing in judgment, and ordered by the Authority to be brought

up in their principles, incensing him against me his own father,

and thus kept from me till he came to a young man’s estate; yet,

notwithstanding, last winter now past, hath been an instrument in

the hands of God, to preserve my life in an unfinished prison,

with an open window facing towards the northwest, I being fined

and imprisoned by two several courts without any trial of law by a

jury.”

Footnote 118:

This deed must have been written in prison. It is recorded among

New London land deeds.

It will be remembered that John Rogers is still in prison, awaiting

the sitting of the March session of the Superior Court in New

London. This now opens, March 25, at the meeting-house.

At the opening of the court, the sheriff announces that he has kept

John Rogers safely until now and has him still in custody. The court

orders the sheriff to set said prisoner at large.

Samuel Beebe fails to follow up his claim on land of Capt. James at

this court, but renews the suit regarding alleged gifts of the widow

to his wife, viz., “moveables,” including certain young slaves

belonging to the estate of James Rogers. He enters suit, by his

attorney, Colonel Livingston, against Samuel Fox (husband of

Bathsheba) for two negroes with £5 damages, and against John Rogers,

Jr., for three negroes; all five being free negroes in employ of

said persons. The verdict goes against him. John Keeney and wife

also lose a similar suit for similar alleged gifts on the part of

the widow.

On this same day, James Rogers, Jr., having presented his accounts,

etc., to the Probate Court, as executor, said court orders

distribution to be made of the residue of the estate (movables),

according to regular form of law when a person dies intestate; a

double portion to Samuel, as oldest son, the remainder to be equally

divided between the other children. This gives James Rogers

one-eighth of the movables, instead of the much larger share

accorded by the codicil. Evidently self-interest had no part in the

move made by James, Jr. Now comes the part of Samuel Rogers in this

final issue. He states to the court, “in writing,” that he has

already, and before his mother’s decease, received, by the terms of

agreement among the heirs, according to his father’s will, all that

was due[119] to him from his father’s estate, to his full

satisfaction, and absolutely quits claim to anything further. Joshua

Hempstead is ordered to make distribution.

Footnote 119:

This due to him was £200 secured by note, and paid to him by the

executor.

(N.B. There has now been placed before the reader the sum and

substance of all the litigation in regard to the estate of James

Rogers, upon which Miss Caulkins founded her statement regarding

“contention” among his children.)

The very next day,[120] March 26 (by Superior Court record), while

the court is still in session, John Rogers is taking a convert to

the Mill Cove for baptism. In doing so, he passes near the house of

the sheriff, where he has so recently been a prisoner. Accompanying

him are a number of his Society, among them John Bolles, John

Rogers, Jr., and James Smith, son of Bathsheba. Time and again,

since that notable day in 1677, has John Rogers baptized persons in

this Mill Cove, directly under the windows of Governor Saltonstall,

so to speak, whose house stands near by on a hillside rising from

the cove. Certain lands bordering this cove remain in Rogerene

ownership.

Footnote 120:

What follows (as far as December, 1713), is derived from

statements of John Rogers (see Part I., Chapter V.), from records

of Superior Court in New London March 26, and from record of

County Court of New London, before which court were arraigned

those who prevented the seizure of John Rogers without a warrant.

If the sheriff and his chief have judged that the heroic treatment

of the past eleven months has cooled the ardor of the dissenters,

here is unmistakable proof to the contrary. If the sheriff can nip

this bold little act in the bud, formally or informally, he may be

sure of the governor’s co-operation and hearty commendation. On plea

of wishing to speak with John Rogers, he persuades him to enter his

house (which, as before said, contains the prison). He then

endeavors to force him to enter a door leading into the prison. The

friends of John Rogers, who have followed him into the house, Upon

seeing the latter purpose on the part of the sheriff, surround their

leader, to prevent hands being laid upon him, and others in the

tavern join them in declaring that no arrest can legally be made

without a warrant. The sheriff leaves, with the avowed purpose of

going to the court-room (meeting-house) for a “mittimus.” Here,

within this brief period of time, are two outrages upon the law;

first, an attempt to take a prisoner without a warrant; second, to

seek warrant for an arrest not authorized by law; the only penalty

concerning such baptism being a fine after the occurrence of said

baptism; imprisonment following only in event of non-payment of the

fine. Well may the victim turn and follow the sheriff to the

court-room.

The sheriff, being somewhat ahead, has already made out a case, so

far as the judge is concerned; nothing more having been necessary

than to state the attempted baptism. Taking into account all that he

has suffered of late from unjust and despotic procedures on the part

of the courts, John Rogers enters the court-room (meeting-house)

fully prepared to denounce this latest outrage.[121]

Footnote 121:

This entrance is thus described on the court records:—

“John Rogers coming into her Majesty’s Superior Court and behaving

himself in a furious, raving manner with mighty crying and

tumultuous noise, and it being certified to this court that ye

said Rogers had gotten some and was endeavoring to gather a

greater number of idle, vagrant persons by a like raving

management of himself, and designed and engaged to dip them in ye

water and said that he would baptise one of them.”

When we remember that the “idle, vagrant persons” accompanying him

were no less substantial citizens than John Rogers, Jr., John

Bolles and men of that stamp, this record assumes the character of

a misrepresentation throughout. Also the contradiction in the

record that John Rogers “designed to dip” an indefinite number “in

the water,” with statement that he said he would baptise “one,” is

significant. No court record regarding John Rogers but must have

been penned with careful reference to the appearance of his

offense before the public, by precaution of those in charge, who

were his enemies.

Vain against the power and determination of Governor Saltonstall are

the ringing tones in which this departure from the written law of

the land is condemned. But well has John Rogers calculated that, in

the presence of all these witnesses, the judge will not venture to

issue the illegal warrant for his arrest. The judge goes on,

however, to sign a warrant (“mittimus”). Although he dare not arrest

John Rogers because of the attempted baptism, he has now a better

excuse and more personal determination also; since John Rogers has

dared to enter the court-room to again publicly denounce official

procedures. He signs a warrant for the arrest of John Rogers, on the

charge of MADNESS!

Well might all the proceedings of the past year, capped by this,

make mad the sanest man, in both senses of the word. The sheriff

claims his prisoner and leads him from the court-room.

A crowd follows sheriff and prisoner to the jail. An uproar ensues

when the window of the prison is darkened by a plank, and that same

plank is broken down by the mob. The appeal of John Rogers, in the

court-room, for the rights of the citizen, has not been made in

vain. All praise to that English lieutenant, who goes to the

Superior Court, still in session, to ask for an adequate examination

of this prisoner, that it may be seen he is under no distraction.

The assurance is returned that the prisoner shall be brought before

the governor in the evening (when danger from the mob may be

avoided) _for a private examination regarding his sanity, by the

very man who has invented this charge of lunacy_! Of the absurdity

of the promised examination, the lieutenant probably knows little or

nothing; but others understand. This evening interview will make the

friends of the governor laugh in their sleeves, while friends of

John Rogers discern a new insult and injury, under this so

transparent cloak of fairness.

Even after dark, the prisoner’s convoy to the house of the governor

is beset with indignant sympathizers, who follow into the very yard

of the governor, where, after the prisoner’s entrance to the house,

they have to be dispersed.

These two men, under these circumstances, stand face to face, behind

closed doors, the one knowing as well as the other that the only

fault or distraction of which John Rogers is guilty is the old crime

of nonconformity. (Would that this remarkable scene and conversation

had been revealed for the benefit of future history.)

After this “examination,” the prisoner is returned to the sheriff,

to be taken to his “house.” With such friendly demonstrations among

the people, John Rogers cannot be confined as a common malefactor or

madman, in the prison at said “house”; he is even allowed the

freedom of the yard during the sheriff’s continued attendance upon

the court, which is sufficiently significant of the known falsity of

the charge of insanity.

Two days after, the sheriff is instructed that, after adjournment of

the court, he is to convey John Rogers to the Hartford prison and

see that he is shut up in a dark room, where a certain French doctor

will “shave his head and give him purges,” to cure him of his

madness. Such treatment, added to all the memories of past wrongs,

would seem enough to give the sanest man the temporary appearance of

a maniac. The more he can be made to appear like a maniac, the more

plausible will be the excuse for consigning him to a worse than

prison cell.

Had it remained for Gurdon Saltonstall to carry out this inhuman

purpose, the statement that John Rogers died in Hartford prison, or

in a madhouse, would probably have ended this man’s history.

Some person, to whom the sheriff confided the inhuman plot, being

friendly to the prisoner, John Rogers is informed of the doom

prepared for him. He goes directly to the sheriff, to inquire into

the truth of the statement, and asks to see the warrant for this new

procedure, which the sheriff shows him. He there recognizes the

handwriting of Gurdon Saltonstall.

Few men could be readier in resources than the man in custody. A

person is quickly found to carry word, this very (Saturday) evening,

to John Rogers, Jr., at Mamacock, of the impending peril. The

hurried message quite suffices. With all possible speed, before the

night is far advanced, John, Jr., is at hand, with a staunch boat,

near by, well manned, to convey his father to Long Island. He has

also money for his use, and, finding him in need of a suitable

shirt, takes off his own and gives him. The boat was easily moored

not far from the prison, which is by the Mill Cove, and also not far

from the Thames River, into which the cove leads.

This boat, propelled by hands well skilled, pulls out from shore, in

cover of the night, and goes to brave the winds and waves of March

across Long Island Sound. John, Jr., returns to Mamacock, with

thrilling tale of this, so far, successful rescue. Many a follower

besides John Bolles anxiously awaits the tidings. Eagerly, no doubt,

they gather in the big front room at the Mamacock “mansion house,”

to talk the matter over and speculate regarding the result, noting

the weather betimes and praying for a bon voyage.

Before dawn, John Rogers is landed at Southold, and makes his way

to the tavern. It will be seen how much he conducts himself either

like a malefactor or a madman. While it is still early morning, he

presents himself before a justice, to inform him of his escape

from the New London sheriff, and the circumstances of the case. A

guard is placed over him until the next day (Monday), when he is

taken before the justices and the law is read to him stating it to

be felony to break out of a constable’s hands. In return, he

places before them a copy of the warrant issued by Governor

Saltonstall for his arrest on the ground of insanity. The

intelligent, self-possessed appearance of the man, as opposed to

this singular declaration of lunacy, occasions these officials no

little perplexity. They withdraw for a private conference. All

agreeing that he is a sane man, they discharge him from custody.

He now informs them of his intention of appealing to the Governor

of New York for protection, and asks them to stop, if possible,

the “Hue and Cry” that will be sent after him, which they kindly

promise to do. The remainder of this story is best told in his own

words (Part I., Chapter V.).