In June of this year, while the refugee is still in New York, a

session of the County Court is being held in New London. The case of

John Rogers, Jr., for the disturbance at night (November 16, 1711),

by which he saved the life of his father, now comes up for review.

He desires to be tried by jury; but the present jury is dismissed

and a special jury impaneled for this case. The fine of £3 and costs

of the previous court is made to stand good against him, and three

of the best cows on Mamacock farm are taken for this fine (see

Chapter IV., last part). Although he was sentenced to imprisonment

until this court for not giving the required bonds, we have seen him

free at the time of his father’s escape to Long Island. The bonds

were doubtless given by a friend, as frequently happens with the

Rogerenes.

At this June court, John Rogers, Jr., John Bolles, and James Smith

(son of Bathsheba) are complained of for preventing the sheriff from

arresting and imprisoning John Rogers on March 26. The charge is

that these persons “opposed, resisted and abused” the sheriff “by

threatening words, pushing, hunching, and laying hands on John

Rogers,” as said sheriff and the constable were apprehending him. A

jury having been demanded and by good fortune accorded, a verdict of

“not guilty” is rendered, and they are discharged. This shows the

method of defence used by the Rogerenes on this occasion. They

surrounded their leader, forming a human wall about him, and kept

this position in spite of the efforts of sheriff and constable to

lay hands upon him.

Although no reply is returned to the message which the authorities

of New York have sent to the authorities at New London, in behalf of

John Rogers, this proof of friendliness on the part of New York

dignitaries towards the refugee from Connecticut, and their evident

knowledge that this refugee had been imprisoned on false pretences,

has so salutary an effect, that when, after a stay of three months

in New York, the nonconformist boldly returns to New London, no

attempt is made at reimprisonment.

This indomitable man immediately makes a move to prosecute the judge

and justices of the County Court who, in June of the preceding year,

not only tried in New London a case of “man-stealing,” pretended to

have been committed within the jurisdiction of Long Island, but

tried a case of this serious nature—even capital upon the law

book—without a jury. He must be well aware that such protest on his

part is not only likely to be very expensive but wholly ineffectual.

Back of this judge and these justices, stands Governor Saltonstall;

moreover, any blame attaching to them would attach equally to the

governor from having so signally punished the man who had declared

against the illegal proceedings of the court at the time. Yet he

makes the appeal manfully. Those who have heard the previous

circumstances will hear also of the vain effort for justice,

and this itself may help to weaken the despotic rule of an

ecclesiastical clique.

1713.

In May of this year, at the session of the General Court, the

judge and justices of the County Court appear, to answer to the

above charges; John Rogers having, by repeated efforts, secured

this much of attention. (See his account, Part I., Chapter V.) The

defendants stand mainly upon objections regarding time and form of

the Petition, on the part of the plaintiff. They say there was

nothing in John Roger’s petition that showed any appearance of

maladministration, and that, had there been any ground for his

complaint, it did not come within the time limited by law. This

shifting from the main ground to technical points, with denial of

any importance to be attached to the significant charges (lack of

jury and wrong jurisdiction), call for legal knowledge and adroit

argument regarding minor points of the law, by way of evading the

question of vital importance. In short, the case is, by legal

device, taken away from the plaintiff at the start. As a show of

justice, the court offers the plaintiff legal counsel; not to

decide whether this case should have been tried where, and as, it

was tried, but mainly whether the plaintiff’s petition was within

the time specified by law. Every difficulty possible had been

placed in his way to retard the case, doubtless with this very end

in view. The plaintiff refuses to make any reply, since he can

reply to nothing but legal evasions. It being proven to the

satisfaction of this court that John Rogers has nothing to

complain of, he is ordered to pay the expenses of the judge and

justices for their attendance on the court.

This man has ever in such cases a last resort, to be used at

whatever peril. Then and there, before this assembly, he again

charges the County Court held in New London, with “felony, rapine

and injustice,” and moreover declares the daring truth that the

Governor of this Colony, here present, is an abettor of the same.

The court, having considered his offense and high misdemeanor,

resolve that he shall pay a fine of £20 to the public treasury, and

execution upon his property is to be granted by the Secretary.

In November of this year, Capt. James Rogers passes away. To the

last, he has been a busy man on land and sea. July 1st he returned

from one of his voyages to the Barbadoes (“Hempstead Diary”). He

owned and operated a tannery and cooper’s establishment at Goshen.

He left a large estate, and followed his father’s example in

desiring his children to settle the same out of court. This

settlement proceeded in a perfectly orderly and harmonious manner.

Despite the fact that his sons, James and Richard, had become

connected with the Congregational church, he and his wife evidently

continued in their nonconformist faith, as particularly proven by

the remonstrance of 1695.[122]

Footnote 122:

That Capt. James, like his brother John, gave up the seventh-day

sabbath, adopting the first day for religious services, is

indicated by the fact that those of his children that remained

Baptists were first-day Baptists. The same is true of the family

of Joseph Rogers, many of whose descendants were (and are)

Baptists of the regular persuasion.

Nothing has been found to disprove the supposition that Capt.

James Rogers and his wife and Joseph Rogers and his wife continued

in the Rogerene faith to the end. John Rogers had many followers,

while the names of only a few of those more conspicuous in

leadership are revealed to us by the court records. The fact that

certain sons of Capt. James and of Joseph inclined to, and finally

united with, the Congregational church readily accounts for the

less prominent stand of their parents.

In December of this year, occurs the death of Samuel Rogers in his

73d year. Although this evidently superior man, by his distaste for

controversy and public proceedings, as well as by his busy life in

developing the new lands of Mohegan (whereby his name is written all

over the early books of New London land records), has succeeded in

hiding himself largely from the view of future generations; yet when

compelled to present himself to such view, he has always been found

acting the manly part. Throughout the early period of persecution,

he was plainly in sympathy with his father and brothers, and proofs

of continued sympathy with the Rogerene cause are evident to the

last. He kept quietly but firmly aloof from the church that

persecuted his relatives, despite counter-influences in his own

family. For some twenty years of his early manhood, he conducted the

bakery business on the former large scale and handed it to his son

unimpaired. Besides the enterprises of his pioneer life, he was a

shipowner and business man at large. Although possessed of great

wealth for his time, he so managed to distribute his property in his

lifetime that little more than cattle and movables remained to be

disposed of after his death, which personal estate was left to his

wife Joanna, the executrix. In his will is the following clause:

“one cow and six sheep to be delivered unto John Rogers, son of

brother John Rogers, to be disposed of as I have ordered him.” Also

the executrix is to act with the advice of above said John Rogers

and Samuel Fox, “oldest son of my brother Samuel Fox” (husband of

Bathsheba). At the writing of this will, February 13, 1713, the

testator states that he is in “perfect health.”

1714.

Mary, the second wife of John Rogers, was, a number of years since,

married to Robert Jones of Block Island.[123] It is now fifteen

years since John Rogers took her for his wife and twelve years since

their enforced separation. He has recently become attached to an

estimable widow, by the name of Sarah Cole, of Oyster Bay, L.I., a

member of the Quaker Society of that locality. Although favorable to

his suit, she is yet inclined to hesitate, on account of rumors that

have been circulated in regard to his separation from Mary. In his

prompt, straightforward way, he desires her to accompany him to

Block Island, to learn from Mary herself if she has anything to say

against him. This request is so reassuring, that the publication of

their marriage intentions takes place at New London, July 4, 1714

(“Hempstead Diary”), after which they visit Mary at her home on

Block Island. Mary gives Mrs. Cole so favorable an account of John

Rogers and the treatment she herself received from him, that the

ceremony is performed by Justice Wright before they leave the

island.

Footnote 123:

See John Rogers, 2d, Part I., Chapter V.

[There is evidence, from the court records and testimony of Peter

Pratt,[124] that this wife, Sarah, was of attractive personality,

also that she was a zealous religious co-worker with her husband,

and that they lived happily together at Mamacock, with John, Jr.,

and his family and the two children of Mary.]

Footnote 124:

“Prey Taken from the Strong.”

CHAPTER IX.

1716.

One of the spasmodic attempts to secure more strict enforcement of

ecclesiastical laws is instituted about this period. Edicts have

been issued by the General Court charging the various officials to

observe greater stringency in the execution of all these laws. That

this sudden and severe pull on the rein does not occasion a general

and continued uprising on the part of the Rogerenes, is only

explainable on the supposition that the first attempt to lay hands

on them anew having brought forth the countermove, the authorities

have thought best to desist from further serious molestation. The

particulars of this countermove are as follows:—

April 22, 1716, there is an entry into the Congregational

meetinghouse by John Rogers and his wife Sarah, John Bolles and his

wife Sarah, John Culver and his wife Sarah, and several others,

names not given. The cause of the disturbance is, as usual in

affairs of this kind, studiously ignored on the court records; but

evidently—as afterwards indicated—this entry, with scriptural

testimony not revealed, was occasioned by the breaking up of

Rogerene meetings by the town authorities, with the accompanying

feature, a church-party mob. As has been seen, the Rogerene

meetings, not being among those allowed by law, can at any time be

broken up at the pleasure or caprice of the authorities, and their

continued existence has depended, not upon the willing forbearance

of the ecclesiastical rulers, nor, to any really saving extent, upon

the public sympathy enlisted in their favor; but chiefly upon that

formidable reserve power—the entrance into the meeting-house, with

scriptural testimony.

Proof of the exact date of this countermove and that the

before-mentioned persons were concerned in it, is contained in the

“Hempstead Diary” and a record of the General Court in the following

month (May). By the latter record, Governor Saltonstall, referring

in this assembly to the offense committed by the said persons,

states that they are now in New London jail.[125] The governor also

states that he learns, from “relatives” of the prisoners, that they

were ignorant of the provisions, under the law of 1708 (see Chapter

VII.), relating to those who soberly dissent. Probably said

relatives have been far more ignorant of this law than have any of

the Rogerenes, who are naturally watching all ecclesiastical

regulations with lynx-like vigilance and are particularly aware that

there is no relief for their Society in this law, as allowed in the

Colony of Connecticut. The governor knows just what the Rogerenes

know in this regard. But he goes on to order that the said prisoners

be released—ostensibly on the ground of this ignorance declared by

their friends—and says, in case they behave themselves orderly and

rest contented with the liberty of worship given them under said

law, they shall not be prosecuted.

Footnote 125:

In fact, the wife of John Rogers was discharged the day after the

occurrence. She, being a regular Quaker, came under different laws

from the Rogerenes and appears to have been treated with some

leniency. Her coming from the State of New York and from a

prominent Quaker community in that State may have had something to

do with this leniency.

All this on the part of the governor doubtless sounds very plausible

and very indulgent, to the uninitiated. He is evidently very glad of

some excuse to release the prisoners. So much of a hornet’s nest has

been aroused, about this time, that not even the disturbance of the

Congregational meeting, less than two weeks before, is considered

sufficient ground for detaining them longer in prison or imposing

any more serious fine than payment of their prison fees.

By the joint testimony of Peter Pratt and John Rogers, 2d, it is

shown that the governor distinctly stated before the Assembly at

this time that the Rogerenes should be allowed to worship God

according to their consciences, if they would refrain from

disturbing Congregational worship, and that he would punish any who

should disturb their worship.[126] Here is something tangible, as

opposed to the ambiguity of the court record; it not only indicates

that the April countermove was a direct result of interference with

Rogerene meetings, but that said countermove had been productive of

a decisive advantage. In short, interference with their meetings had

caused the countermove, the countermove had forced the governor to

himself promise them immunity from further interference of this

sort, on condition that they would not exercise their reserve power.

Footnote 126:

“And first I grant that the governor did actually make this

promise, viz., that, to persuade us to forbear, if we would be

quiet and worship God in our own way according to our consciences,

he would punish any of their people that should disturb our

worship,—and that it was in a Public Court before a multitude of

hearers.”—_John Rogers, 2d._

We find after intimation by John, 2d, that this promise of the

governor was not kept.

1719.

Three years have now passed, with no record of any disturbance of

the Congregational meetings, and of nothing, in fact, to show how

matters are progressing that concern Rogerene history, unless it be

the total lack of court notice. It is at least a season of patient

endurance and forbearance on the part of the Rogerenes, so far as

the ordinary distrainments are concerned. About this time, there is

talk of a proposed rebuilding, or enlargement, of the Congregational

meeting-house, which will occasion a new levy on the Rogerenes, with

the usual wholesale seizure of property. But something more serious

than this now occurs, the exact nature of which is hidden from our

view. The disturbing move is made by the town authorities, under

some one of the Sunday laws, and the victim is Sarah, wife of John

Bolles, her infringement of this Sunday law being “a matter of

conscience” on her part.

It must be borne in mind that under the ecclesiastical laws, to

whose unscriptural character it is the mission of this sect to bear

testimony at all hazards, punishments far beyond the letter of said

laws are frequently being inflicted upon the Rogerenes. The

following from John Bolles throws light upon this subject:—

When a poor man hath had but one milch cow for his family’s

support, it hath been taken away; or when he hath had only a

small beast to kill for his family, it hath been taken from him,

to answer a fine for going to a meeting of his own Society, or

to defray the charges of a cruel whipping for going to such a

meeting, or things of this nature. Yea, twelve or fourteen

pounds worth of estate hath been taken to defray the charges of

one such cruel whipping, without making any return as the law

directs. Yea, fourscore and odd sheep have been taken from a

man, being all his flock; a team taken from the plow, with all

its furniture and led away. But I am not now giving a particular

account, for it would contain a book of a large volume to relate

all that hath been taken from us, and as unreasonable and

boundless as these; besides the cruelties inflicted on our

bodies and many long imprisonments....

Here we see something of those things which never appear upon the

court records and of whose “boundless”ness we only now and then

catch a glimpse, by some side-light like this or by a Rogerene

entrance into the meeting-house, the latter effect always pointing

to some unbearable wrong as its cause. To continue with this

statement of John Bolles:—

“and many long imprisonments, of which I shall mention one woman,

when she was condemned by a judge in a case of conscience; because

she stopped her ears and would not hearken to his sentence, as not

belonging to him to judge in such cases, but with a cheerful

spirit sang praises to God, and then turned to the judge and said

that if he went on persecuting God’s people God’s judgments would

come upon him and his.”

There are among the Rogerenes many sweet singers, who sing hymns and

psalms in certain meetings of their Society. It appears (by aid of

above statement) that Sarah, wife of John Bolles, is one of these;

for, by a Superior Court record of September 22, 1719, it is shown

that Sarah Bolles is summoned from prison before that court

“to answer for reflecting upon the proceedings of a court held in

New London,[127] in saying to one of the judges thereof, viz.:

Rich. Christophers, Esq.: Now look to yourself for God’s judgments

will surely come upon you, for your unjust judgments for

persecuting God’s people—Said Sarah, being asked whether she was

guilty or not guilty of the crime for which she was committed,

refused to make any plea. Whereupon said Sarah Bolles shall suffer

two month’s imprisonment” (in addition to the four already

endured) “and pay the charges of her prosecution and stand

committed till the said charge be paid, viz.: £1 19_s._”

Footnote 127:

About four months before and evidently a town court and the one

referred to by John Bolles.

So this heroic woman, who has ten children at home, five of whom are

under ten years of age, is returned to prison, not only for the two

months, but until she pay the charges of her prosecution, which the

court, as well as her own people, have good reason to believe she

will never pay, thus to encourage the authorities in their

unchristian persecution of the Rogerenes. John Bolles goes on to

say, regarding this woman, whose name he does not reveal:—

Whereupon said judge condemned her to prison, where after further

determination, [viz.: above Superior Court sentence] she was

required to remain till she should pay the charge of her

prosecution, so called, and there continued six months, till God

made way by moving the hearts of the people with compassion for

her deliverence, by seeing her affliction; she being not only

locked up in prison but also a high boarded fence round the

prison, locked also,[128] and the prison keeper living near half a

mile from the prison, it being an extreme cold winter, and in the

height of it she miscarried, being without any help nor could call

for any, her husband living about a mile and a half from the

prison and was not suffered to come to her; as if God suffered

such things to be done to lay conviction before all faces. But

after her release she was carried home on her bed in a cart and

after some time she was, thro’ God’s goodness, restored to health

again.

Footnote 128:

Here is recognizable the “inner prison” described by John Rogers.

About two weeks previous to this appearance of Sarah Bolles before

the Superior Court, there occurred a Rogerene countermove which is

directly traceable to her imprisonment. This countermove took place

September 6, after Sarah had been nearly four months in prison. It

must have been known to the Rogerenes, and to the authorities as

well, that she was with child, which, together with the fact that

the youngest of the ten children needing her at home is but two

years of age,[129] made this long imprisonment in “a matter of

conscience,” with the impending appearance before the Superior Court

on charge of contempt, especially aggravating. The circumstances

called for some imperative action on the part of her friends, the

more so, because no mercy could be expected from the judge of the

Superior Court.

Footnote 129:

This child was Joshua Bolles, grandfather of Mr. John R. Bolles.

The persons accused of entering the meeting-house on this 6th of

September, are John Rogers and his wife, Sarah, wife of John Culver,

John Bolles, John Rogers, Jr., Andrew Davis and Esther Culver. The

records relative to this countermove are in the minutes of the

November session of the County Court in New London. First, that on

September 6, while Mr. Adams was at public prayer, John Rogers, Sr.,

entered the meeting-house and interrupted the service in a loud

voice.[130] (No slightest clew is given to the words spoken.) He

pleads “not guilty” and is fined £20 and charges, £3. The record

states that, upon this (November) trial, he “behaved himself

contemptuously, coming into court in a violent manner and raving

voice, saying, ‘What have you to say to me, etc.’ (would we might

have the words in place of the ‘etc.’) and when the indictment (not

revealed) was read, he cried out That’s a ly, and upon that part of

the indictment (part not revealed) when read he again cried out,

‘That’s a devilish ly,’ and by abusing one of the members of the

court in saying to him, upon said justice’s affirmation, several

times that’s a ly, and for several other abusive demeanors” in the

court-room (unfortunately not described), he is sentenced to pay

20_s._—he who so often for no more contempt than this has been fined

£20. (Moreover, as late as May 25, of the following year, it is on

record that “execution” for this 20_s._ was “returned with nothing

acted upon it.” In this insignificant fine is visible the sympathy

of a jury, and in the lack of “execution” the fact that no collector

is willing to collect this fine, although he may be himself fined

for the omission.) The record continues:—“John Rogers demands a

present appeal to the King’s bench.” “Court consider that no such

appeal lies.”

Footnote 130:

The following is from the “Hempstead Diary:”—“1719, Sept. 6, Sun.

Jno. Rogers and his crew made a disturbance—the midst of prayer

time They came in a horse cart. Committed to prison at night.”

Sarah, wife of John Rogers, is also presented at this November court

for having come into the meeting-house, on the same occasion

(September 6), and “interrupted Mr. Adams by speaking several words

in a loud voice.” The court having considered the evidence in this

case and that said Sarah has “behaved herself competently well

before the court and also pleading ignorance of the laws and methods

of this government, and considering her also under covert and that

she has been committed to prison until this court,” sentence her to

pay a fine of 10_s._ and prison fees, £3. Sarah, wife of John

Culver, for same offense on same occasion, same fine and fee. John

Bolles “for breach of Sabbath” on same day (form of breach not

stated), same fine and charge as the women. Andrew Davis, Esther

Culver and John Rogers, Jr., same charge and fines as John Bolles.

For the two months previous to this November court, John Rogers and

his wife, Sarah Culver, John Bolles and the others have been

confined in prison. All these people know, at the date of this

November court, that Sarah Bolles has not only lost her child, but

is lying at the point of death in the “inner prison.” Well might the

leader of the Society in whose cause she has so suffered and

endured, when he at length escaped from prison and had an

opportunity to speak in public, employ such scathing words as

befitted the occasion.

(From this court scene as described by Peter Pratt,—see Chapter

XIV.,—are derived the statements that John Rogers and his followers

were accustomed to accuse dignitaries of lying.)

After all the verdicts in this case have been rendered, Sarah, wife

of John Culver, knowing so much more of this season of persecution

and the legal (and illegal) proceedings than is possible to

outsiders, indignantly exclaims in court: “You are an adulterous

generation and I hope God will find you out” (by Court Record), for

which the court sentences her to receive fifteen stripes on the

naked body and to pay charges for the same.

Nor is this the end of the matter. Sarah Bolles, despite all

protest, still lies at the point of death in the cold and dismal

“inner prison.” What can yet be done by this non-resistant people?

They may not, by their principles, even waylay the jailer, seize his

keys, hold him for a time in durance, and so rescue Sarah Bolles.

But, upheld by the public sympathy now enlisted, they can head a

resolved company of men and women, break down the gate of the prison

fence, and, aided by the Rogerenes within the jail, force open the

prison doors and bring out the helpless captive. This is exactly

what takes place.

Before this same November court is at an end, complaint is made to

said court by the keeper of the prison, that “John Culver, John

Culver, Jr., Bathsheba, wife of John Rogers, Jr., and Mary Rogers,

daughter of John Rogers, Sr., did, on the 26th and 27th of this

Nov.” (viz., at midnight) “stave down part of the prison yard.” A

significant ending of this record is that for this misdemeanor John

Culver and his son are to pay only 10_s._ and charges, and Bathsheba

and Mary to pay only the charges of their prosecution, also that

John Rogers and the others still in prison are not brought before

this court at all. All this shows the extent of public sympathy at

the time, especially in regard to those concerned in the September

countermove.

The court record does not inform us that Sarah Bolles was rescued

from the prison by this raid and carried home in a cart; neither

does it inform us that the company headed by the persons tried for

this daring deed contained others besides Rogerenes, whose

approbation was enlisted by the danger of a second murder being

committed in that prison, through cruel neglect. Only by the public

sympathy exhibited on this occasion can the facts be accounted for

that no action is taken by the court regarding the escaped prisoner

and no record of her escape made.

John Rogers had been returned to prison on account of non-payment of

the £23, for disturbance of meeting. John, Jr., John Bolles and the

others were in prison also for non-payment of smaller fines, for the

same offense. Thus the attack from outside the prison lacked the

usual leadership; yet that these prisoners were concerned in the

rescue, from a position within the prison, is shown by a record of

the General Court of November 30, to the effect that, at a special

meeting of the Governor and Council, of that date, “it is ordered

that the fines and penalties incurred by John Rogers etc.” (“etc.”

doubtless including the others tried with John Rogers for the

September countermove) “on account of recent tumultuous and riotous

proceedings of which said prisoners have been guilty, be

applied—upon collection of same—to the extraordinary charge which

they have occasioned the county by said proceedings.” This “charge”

evidently refers to repairs of the prison which was broken into

three days before in behalf of Sarah Bolles. Why the Culvers and

Mary and Bathsheba were brought before the County Court (where they

were so lightly fined) and “John Rogers, Sr. etc.” dealt with by a

special court can only be conjectured. It is not unlikely that this

raid upon the jail resulted also in the rescue of Sarah Culver from

the stripes. The fact that her husband and son acted with the women

indicates such a possibility.

As has been seen, the arrest of Sarah Bolles was for some so-called

“breach of Sabbath.”[131] Certainly she could not have been

ploughing or carting. Had she been spinning at the door of her home,

or had she ventured to walk some distance over the Norwich road to

visit one of her friends? In either case, this would be no more than

she had been doing ever since 1707; yet either of these acts would

have furnished legal ground for her arrest. The only way to account

for the proceedings against her is by supposition of another of the

spasmodic attempts to intimidate and repress Rogerene leadership.

That Sarah Bolles deserves the name of a leader in this Society is

evident.

Footnote 131:

See Appendix for “Request of John Rogers from New London Prison,

November 17, 1719,” which seems to be connected with this charge

against Sarah Bolles.

One of the most serious grievances of the Rogerenes, since

they began to hold their services on Sunday, is that, although

the Congregationalists are allowed to go long distances to

Congregational meetings, the Rogerenes are arrested for

travelling any considerable distance to meetings of their own

persuasion. From the fact that they hold their meetings in

private houses, such services are sometimes at one house and

sometimes at another, and, as they are widely scattered

(outside the nucleus at Quaker Hill), some of the members are

always liable to travel some distance.

On Sunday, December 13, two weeks after the November trial just

described, a young Rogerene, by the name of John Waterhouse, has the

audacity to appear at the door of the Congregational meeting-house,

and, “standing within the ground sill, in sermon time,” to exclaim:

“I am come to enter complaint that I am stopped on the King’s

highway.”[132] He has availed himself of the one efficient mode of

defense, the Rogerene countermove.

Footnote 132:

The following, from Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Justice Backus,

appears to indicate the usual manner of this interference,

although referring, in this particular case, to the church at

Norwich.—“And several times since, when we have passed by their

meeting-house along the road towards our own meeting, their

constable has prest a considerable number of men out of their

meeting house, who with horses have followed hard after us with

ungoverned zeal, and have stopped us and made prisoners of us for

the sake of our religion.”

1720.

The proof of this courageous stand of John Waterhouse, while the

leading Rogerenes are in prison, is from records of the County

Court, June, 1720. By these records it is also shown that some three

months after the above offense (and apparently while out on bail,

pending trial in June) this same young man “blew a horn or shell

near the meeting-house, while the congregation were singing,” and,

refusing to give bond for appearance at the County Court in June,

“with good behavior in meantime,” is arrested and imprisoned.

At this same June court, the offender is brought from prison, and

being charged with the first offense, of December 13, refuses to

reply to the question “guilty or not guilty.”[133] The court now

proceeds to give judgment, “on a nihil dicit,” of £20 fine, with

charges of prosecution, and if he do not immediately pay or give

surety he “shall be let out,” until the same is paid. The same

judgment, upon a nihil dicit, is pronounced in regard to the blowing

of the horn, viz.: fine of £20, which if not paid he is to be let

out, etc.

Footnote 133:

It was the Rogerene custom when arraigned for countermove

offenses, either to make no reply to this court query or to reply

“not guilty,” in the sense of having done nothing wrong. We

occasionally find John Bolles replying that he will “be judged by

God and not by man.”

Yet this very act of blowing a horn on Sunday near a meeting-house,

in time of service, is among the offenses enumerated upon the law

book as finable by only 40_s._, which is all the young man had

reason to expect. Here are more than £40 for this young man to pay,

or go to common servitude for a long period.

Nor is this all that is charged against John Waterhouse at this June

court. He is examined on suspicion of being concerned in a most

astonishing performance, in the month previous (May 4), viz.: the

“opening and carrying away of the doors of the prison” to which the

clarion blast had consigned him, and in which he had been confined

something over a month. At date of this June court, said doors have

“not yet been found.” It is also stated that, during this

imprisonment, he had made his escape from the prison several

times—and, of course, he had escaped again at the time of the

opening of the doors. He pleads “not guilty” regarding the doors,

probably, as do other Rogerenes in such cases, admitting no guilt in

doing that which they consider right, however contrary it may be to

the law. Fortunately for the romance, he does not satisfy the court

that he had no hand in said damage and disappearance. The jailer is

to recover from him the value of the prison doors “as they were,

with the locks on them,” which is £5. With charge of prosecution and

another fine of £20 for this offense, added to his previous fines,

more than £70 are required of this young man at this June court. £70

represents a snug little fortune (at this date), enough to buy a

good farm “with mansion house thereon.” This is the more preparing

him for life-long opposition to ecclesiastical government, an

opposition which is to be transmitted undiminished to his

descendants. (For this young man is to be the founder of the

Quakertown community, that “remnant” which, in the words of Rev.

Abel McEwen, “exists in a neighboring town.”)

Since John Waterhouse is to be so potent a factor in Rogerene

history, let us scrutinize him as closely as the scanty glimpses

permit. Is he not some young scapegrace, allied to the Rogerenes for

love of their so venturesome and exciting life? So he might be

judged, but for the preamble of one old deed of gift on the New

London records, despite the fact that he is a son of Jacob

Waterhouse and grandson of Mr. Robert Douglass,[134] two of the most

substantial citizens of New London and members of the Congregational

church. Jacob Waterhouse, in 1717, singled out this son John to

receive, by deed of gift, the family homestead, “my father’s

habitation,[135] near the mill bridge,” as well as a valuable tract

of land at “Foxen’s Hill” on the river; not because he was his

oldest son, but “for love and appreciation of his dutiful behavior.”

It is, then, the dutiful son of a wealthy and honorable citizen of

New London who was arraigned as above at the June court in 1720.

Surely it would not be wise to omit visiting upon this renegade

youth dire punishment for his bold espousal of Rogerene faith and

Rogerene methods, lest other promising young men of the

Congregational fold should dare to venture upon a like career.

Footnote 134:

Jacob Waterhouse married Ann Douglass (daughter of Mr. Robert

Douglass and Mary Hempstead, daughter of Robert Hempstead). John

was their oldest child, born, 1690.

Footnote 135:

Viz., homestead of Jacob Waterhouse, 1st, one of the planters of

New London.

But we are not yet through with this interesting June court. John

Bolles is here arraigned, on a like suspicion of being concerned in

opening and carrying away those prison doors “that have not yet been

found.” For declining, at the time of their disappearance, “to give

any reply to inquiries made of him concerning that matter” he has

been imprisoned until now. He now pleads “not guilty,” which of

itself might mean that he acknowledges no guilt in the matter; but

his wife is present to testify that he was at home upon the night of

this romantic occurrence, also Esther Waterhouse,[136] “who lodged

at John Bolle’s that night,” testifies to the same effect; upon

which John Bolles is to be discharged, on payment of costs of

prosecution and prison fees. One can but marvel that John Bolles did

not in the first place avail himself of this so convenient

testimony, and thus escape imprisonment and expense. Also, why were

not those noted prison breakers, John Rogers, Sr. and Jr.,

arraigned, on suspicion of complicity in this matter? Had they no

hand in this achievement, or were their tracks so well covered that

no slightest clew could be discovered by the authorities? Did John

Bolles, knowing he had evidence to clear himself at sitting of the

June court, allow himself to be imprisoned on this suspicion, in

order to draw attention from the true culprits?

Footnote 136:

Daughter of John Culver and recently married to John Waterhouse.

Sometime in this year is printed, in Boston, “The Book of the

Revelation of Jesus Christ,” by John Rogers, Sr.[137]

Footnote 137:

Here it may be well to refer to the mode of distribution of the

works of this author. He appears to have himself carried many of

them about New England, going long journeys on horseback, the

books in his portmanteau. This not only gave him opportunity to

circulate his writings more extensively, but to discourse with

people at a distance, and also to preach in various places. He

must in such, as well as in other more evident ways, have been

extensively known and famous in his day. This accounts for his

dedication of the above-mentioned volume “To the Flock Scattered

Throughout New England.” John Bolles circulated many of his own

books in like manner.

CHAPTER X.

1721.

1721. _Feb. 26, Sunday._—The Quakers at Meeting made a great

disturbance; especially Sarah Bolles.—_Hempstead Diary._

Mr. Hempstead, in his usual brief style of chronicle, gives no

further light upon this matter. By the records of the County Court,

in the following June, it is shown that the Quakers referred to in

the Diary were John Bolles, his wife Sarah and John Waterhouse, and

that the impelling reason for this countermove was because John

Waterhouse had been seized and maltreated for baptizing Joseph

Bolles, eldest son of John and Sarah, now twenty years of age, who,

on entering upon a religious life, had, with the approval of his

father and mother and the rest of the Society to which his whole

family belonged, selected this young leader to baptize him.

Had any Rogerene been selected to perform this baptism other than

the “dutiful” son who had recently left the Congregational church to

join the nonconformists, it is probable there would have been no

such unusual interference; since such baptisms have been constantly

taking place for years, and there is no record of any other

disturbance of this character.

Extensive improvements have now been completed in the Congregational

meeting-house, almost equivalent to a rebuilding of that edifice.

From the Rogerenes has been taken the usual unreasonable amount of

property on this account; in the case of John Rogers, three of his

best fat cattle together with shoes that, sold cheap at an “outcry,”

brought 30_s._ It seems high time, after so many years of exorbitant

tribute to a ministry of which these people have no approbation,

that some more effectual effort should be made than the simple

refusal to pay such taxes, which has practically greatly increased

their loss, by leaving them utterly at the mercy of the collectors.

A plan is now devised to fit this emergency, yet one much less

aggressive than the ordinary countermove and indicative of a spirit

of compromise on the part of the Rogerenes, despite the fact that

one of their recent baptisms has been so seriously interfered with

and their friends concerned therein are to be tried at the next

sitting of the County Court. A representative number of them will

appear at noontime in the meeting-house, which they have been forced

to assist in rebuilding, and endeavor to hold a meeting of their own

between the regular services. Undoubtedly, they expect to be

prevented from entering the church at all; but the appeal for their

rights in the premises will be made none the less evident and

eloquent by such prevention. If they do succeed in entering, the

familiar riot will ensue, occasioned by putting them out in a

violent manner, carrying them to prison, etc. In that case, they

will be fined “for making a riot,” and tried and sentenced for the

same; but their cause will be all the better advertised, at home and

abroad.

_April 23, 1721, Sacrament Day._—John Rogers came into the

meeting-house and preached between meetings, his crew with

him.—_Hempstead Diary._

By this, it is shown that the first attempt at this new style of

countermove was on the above day, and, by the absence of any court

record regarding this occurrence, it further appears that, either

because it was “sacrament day,” or because the governor was out of

town, or from both causes, no resistance was made to this noon entry

or to the preaching by John Rogers that followed, each of the

Rogerenes occupying his or her own seat as set off in the

meeting-house.

Upon the next Sunday, they appear in like manner,[138] just as the

Congregational service is breaking up. As Mr. Adams and the others

come out, they politely state their purpose of holding another

meeting of their own between the Congregational services. No

objection being made, they enter and take their places in the seats

assigned them. The governor is surely at hand on this occasion, and

none can be more expectant of dire consequences to the offenders

than are the heroic band themselves. But even Governor Saltonstall

cannot well proceed without the issue of a warrant, which he must

hasten to procure. In these critical circumstances, the dauntless

leader proceeds to expound certain Scriptures to his little audience

of twelve Rogerenes, with, doubtless, some curious spectators also.

Footnote 138:

“John Rogers and several of his Society (having as good a right to

the New London meeting-house as any in the town) did propose to

hold our meeting there at noon-time, between the meeting of the

other congregation, so as not to disturb them in either of their

meetings. And, accordingly, we met there, and finding their

meeting not ended, we stood without the door until their forenoon

meeting was ended and the people came out, and then John Rogers

told them our design was to make no disturbance, but to hold our

meeting while they were at dinner, and when they were ready for

the afternoon meeting we would desist and go away. Whereupon I

heard no person manifest any dislike of our proceedings.

Whereupon, John Rogers went into the seat which the town officers

seated him in after the meeting house was built” (viz., rebuilt)

“and proceeded to expound a chapter in the Bible. But in the time

of our meeting, the constable was sent with a warrant to break up

our meeting, and was attended with a rude company of men, who

began to haul men and women out of meeting, committing some to

prison, as did Paul in his unconverted state. And when Sarah

Bolles saw the constable and his attendant carrying her husband to

prison by his arms and legs, with his belly downward, in a very

cruel manner, she and Josiah Gates, another of our Society, went

to the Governor minding him of his late promise to defend us in

our meetings from any that should disturb us and desired him that

her husband might not be so abused, but all the relief they had,

Josiah Gates received a box on the ear from the governor’s own

hand, and they were both turned out of doors by the governor, and

the next day the governor sat judge himself of the matter and

bound over J. Rogers to the County Court, charging him with a

riot, though all he did was to expound a chapter as aforesaid, and

all that his people did was to attend to his exposition, in as

quiet a manner as was ever in any meeting in the king’s dominions,

till the constable with his rude attendants made the disturbance.

However, the court fined John Rogers 10 shillings and the charges.

Execution was given out, and the sheriff first took ten sheep and

then a milch cow”—“And I do further add that I know of no

protection that we have met with from the authority, relating to

our worship but what has been of the same nature.”—_Reply of John

Rogers, 2d, to Peter Pratt._

For account of the same by John Rogers, Sr., see Part I., Chapter

V.

A constable soon appears upon the scene, and the excitable and

riotous portion of the church party are now at liberty to make an

uproar and assist in the seizure and abuse. John Bolles is carried

out and to jail by the arms and legs, face downward. His wife Sarah

and one of the Rogerene men, Josiah Gates, hasten to the house of

the governor, near by, where they remind him of his public promise

(Chapter IX.) not to break up their meetings provided they do not

disturb the Congregational church services, and Mrs. Bolles begs

that her husband may not be thus abused.

Considering the towering rage of the governor over this strategic

move on the part of the nonconformists, and the plea of the

petitioners regarding non-disturbance of Congregational services,

the box on the ear which Josiah Gates receives from the hand of the

governor and the summary turning of the two petitioners out of doors

is a natural sequence.

The next day, the governor binds John Rogers and John Bolles over to

the June court.

By the records of the County Court in June, we find John Rogers and

John Bolles called to answer “for unlawful and riotous entrance into

the meeting-house on April 30, with other persons to the number of

twelve.” They plead “not guilty” (viz.: to any riotous entering or

to any guilt in entering). The court finds both guilty; John Bolles

is to pay a fine of £5, and cost of prosecution £3. John Rogers,

having taken the precaution to demand trial by jury, is to pay a

fine of only 10_s._, and cost of prosecution £1 18_s._, which gives

us the popular verdict in the case. Yet for this fine the sheriff

took ten sheep and a milch cow. In this way, the executives got the

better of a sympathetic jury.

At this June court, John Bolles and his wife are arraigned for

having disturbed the congregation “in February last” (upon occasion

of the Congregational interference with the baptism of their son

Joseph by John Waterhouse). The court, “having heard what each has

to offer and the evidence against them, adjudge each to pay a fine

of £20 and costs of prosecution £1.”

As for John Waterhouse, he is first tried for having disturbed the

Congregational meeting (after the church interference with said

baptism, February 26) and is to pay same fine and charges as John

Bolles and wife for this offense. Accordingly the cost of Joseph’s

baptism reaches £65. No wonder that Joseph Bolles is to become a

leader among the Rogerenes and eventually prominent in a great

countermove that is to shake the Congregational church of New

London.

John Waterhouse is also tried for “assuming a pretended

administration of the ordinance of baptism to one Joseph Bolles of

New London” and “that in time thereof he made use of these words: ‘I

baptize thee into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.’” “The matter

of fact against him being fully proven” and “he having been

imprisoned” (apparently until the sitting of this court), he is now

sentenced to be whipped ten stripes on the naked body for having

performed this baptism.

It is well for the Rogerene Society that so courageous and talented

a man as John Waterhouse has given himself to the Christian service

in this contest for religious liberty. The days of their great

leader are now numbered, although he is still, at seventy-three

years of age, in full health and vigor, despite his fifteen years of

imprisonment during the last forty-six years, and many other trials

and sufferings induced by merciless punishments.

Prominent among the noticeable facts in this man’s history is his

faithful Christian ministry, a ministry copied closely from New

Testament precept and example. Here is a pastor who in obedience to

the command to visit the sick has been ever ready to hasten

fearlessly to the bedsides of victims of the most dreaded contagion,

to render aid temporal or spiritual; although not himself an immune,

unless God so decree. He could be called upon in any circumstance of

misfortune, wherever a friend was needed, to serve, to comfort, or

advise. He has assisted the poor from the earnings of his own hands.

He has visited the widows and the fatherless and those in prison. He

has been at all the charges of his own ministry, by the fruits of

his own industry. Since it has been claimed by him and his

followers, on Scriptural authority, that faith and prayer are more

efficacious in the healing of the sick than are the advice and

prescriptions of earthly physicians, how often for this purpose must

his prayers have been required.

A few months later than the events narrated in previous portions of

this chapter, occurs the great smallpox pestilence in Boston. At

this time, John Rogers is having published in that city his book

entitled “A Midnight Cry,” and also his “Answer to R. Wadsworth.” If

he has need to go to Boston, on business connected with these

publications, it is certain, by the character of the man, that he

will not hesitate, but rather hasten, that he may, in the general

panic there, render some assistance. Even if he has no business

occasion for such a visit, it will not matter, provided he judges

the Master’s command to visit the sick calls him to Boston. Since

his conversion in 1674, he has made a practice of visiting those

afflicted with this contagion so shunned by others, yet has never

been attacked by the disease. He believes the promise that God will

preserve His faithful children to the full age of threescore years

and ten unless called to offer up their lives in martyrdom, and that

when, at last, in His good pleasure, He shall call them, it matters

not by what disease or what accident He takes them hence. Surely

death could come in no better way than in some especial obedience to

His command.[139]

Footnote 139:

In the first place, he (J. Backus) asserts that our infallible

spirit deceived us as it did john Rogers, who pretended from the

inspiration that he was proof against all infection of body etc.

Now I am fully persuaded that John Rogers never spake those words,

but that J. Backus is highly guilty of slandering him in his grave

concerning this matter. He also adds that to put the matter upon

trial he daringly ventured into Boston in the time of the small

pox, but received the infection and died of it, with several of

his family.

Now how presumptuous and censorious a judgment it is for him to

assert that his going to Boston was daringly to put the matter

upon trial, when it was well known that it had been his practice

for more than forty years past to visit all sick persons as often

as he had opportunity, and particularly those who had the small

pox; when in the height of their distemper he has sat on their

bedside several hours at a time, discoursing of the things of God;

so that his going to Boston the last time, was no other than his

constant practice had been ever since he made a profession of

religion. Now it is certain that John Rogers in his lifetime, and

all his Society to this day, do firmly believe, from the testimony

of the Scriptures, that God’s protection is with his faithful

children through the course of this life, to continue them to old

age (notwithstanding the calamities that he sends on the earth),

except when He calls them to lay down their lives for his truth by

way of martyrdom, as may be seen abundantly in Scripture, Job 5,

26. Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, like as a shock of

corn cometh in his season. Psalm 91, 16, With long life will I

satisfy him etc. Now the age of man is set forth in Scripture to

be seventy years, as is to be seen Psal. 90, 10.

Now although we have the Scripture plentifully to confirm us in

this principle of God’s protecting his faithful children to old

age etc., yet we know it is appointed for all men once to die,

according to what is written Heb. 9, 27, and by what manner of

death it may please God to take them to himself, after he hath

preserved them to old age, he has not revealed, and therefore

neither J. Rogers in his lifetime, nor any of his Society since

his death, has undertaken to decide the matter; judging it to be

one of those secret things which God hath not revealed to us, and

therefore is not our business to meddle with, according to what is

written, Deut. 28, 29. The secret things belong unto the Lord our

God; but those things that are revealed belong unto us &c.

Now let every unprejudiced reader take notice how little cause J.

Backus has to reflect John Roger’s manner of death upon him, who

lived to the age of seventy-three years, and then died in his own

house on his own bed, having his reason continued to the last, and

manifesting his peace with God and perfect assurance of a better

life. He had also a very easy death, without any struggling or

striving as is common to many people.—_Answer of John Rogers, 2d,

to J. Backus._

If after an immunity of more than forty years, not only to himself

but to his household, he takes cheery leave of family and friends,

ere mounting his horse for the long journey, it is no wonder, nor if

they take a like cheerful view of his departure. The Lord may bring

him safely back, as so often before, even though his seventieth year

is past. Yet—it may be that this call of the Master is to prove his

faithfulness unto death.

His horse stands saddled by the roadside, with portmanteau packed

for a brave and kindly stay, God willing, with the suffering and the

forsaken. He is ready even to his jackboots, and his faithful watch

tells him it is time for the start.[140] We look for no tremor here,

even when he speaks the last farewell, but for the cheery word, the

tender glance, the fervent grasp of the hand, the committal to God

of those he holds dearest on earth, the agile spring to the saddle,

and a still erect and manly figure vanishing at the turn of the

road. It is not unlikely that a cavalcade of brethren accompany him

some miles on his way.

Footnote 140:

In Inventory, watch, portmanteau and jackboots, also besides

saddle, etc., a “male pillion,” indicating a frequent companion in

his journeyings.

On and on, from the health-giving breezes of Mamacock, towards the

plague-stricken city. Once there,—would we might follow him in his

ministrations, even to that day when he remounts his horse for the

homeward journey. Has the contagion so abated by the middle of

October that he is no longer needed, or can he indeed be aware that

he himself is attacked by the disease? Would it be possible for a

man, after he had become sensible that the malady was upon him, to

take the journey on horseback from Boston to New London? All that is

known for a certainty is that after he reaches home the disease has

developed. It seems probable that he was permitted to complete his

mission in Boston and to leave there unconscious of the insidious

attack awaiting him. Why was he stricken down at the close of this

faithful effort to obey the command of the Master in the face of

scorn and peril? One important result is to ensue. The unfaltering

trust of the Rogerenes in an all-powerful and all-loving God is to

be shown remaining as firm as though John Rogers had returned to

them unscathed, and this unswerving trust in God’s promises, under

circumstances calculated to shake such a trust to the uttermost, is

to be attested over and over by the records of Connecticut.

Fast and far is spread the alarm that John Rogers, just returned

from his foolhardy visit to Boston, is prostrated at Mamacock with

the dread contagion. There are in the house, including himself,

thirteen persons. Adding the servants who live in separate houses on

the place, it is easy to swell the number to “upwards of twenty.”

The large farm, spreading upon both sides of the road, is itself a

place of isolation. On the east is a broad river, separating it from

the uninhabited Groton bank. On the north is wooded, uninhabited,

Scotch Cap.[141] There is possibly a dwelling within half a mile at

the northwest. A half-mile to the south is the house of John Bolles.

What few other neighbors there may be, are well removed, and there

are dwellings enough on the farm to shelter all not required for

nursing the sick. To what degree the family might take the usual

precautions, if left to themselves, or how efficacious might be

their scriptural methods, can never be known; since the authorities

take the matter in hand at the start.

Footnote 141:

The only house built at Scotch Cap before the present century was

built about 1740, by Capt. Benj. Greene. Until within a few years,

the cellar of that house remained and also the chimney. It was

called “the chimney lot.”

Had this illness occurred in the very heart of a crowded city,

greater alarm or more stringent measures could not have ensued.

There is a special meeting of Governor and Council at New Haven,

October 14, on receipt of the news that John Rogers is ill at

Mamacock with the smallpox, and that “on account of the size of the

family, upwards of twenty persons, and the great danger of many

persons going thither and other managements” (doubtless referring to

scriptural methods of restoration and precaution) “there is great

liability of the spread of the infection in that neighborhood.” It

is enacted that “effectual care be taken to prevent any intercourse

between members of the family and other persons, also that three or

four persons be impressed to care for the sick.”

There are a number of meetings of the Governor and Council over this

matter (for full accounts of which see the published records of the

General Court of Connecticut). Were it not for the court records,

coming generations would be at loss to know whether the members of

the family themselves, also John Bolles, John Waterhouse, John

Culver and their wives, and others of the Rogerenes held firmly to

their principles in this crisis, or whether they stood willingly and

fearfully aloof, not daring to put their faith and theory to so

dangerous and unpopular a test. Fortunately for Rogerene history,

the testimony furnished by records of the special sittings of the

Governor and Council on this occasion, fully establishes not only

the fidelity of the Rogerenes to New Testament teachings, but also

their attachment and loyalty to their leader.

Three days after the official order that every relative and friend

be banished from his bedside, and so with no one near him but the

immunes pressed into the service, John Rogers yields up his life

unto Him whom he has faithfully striven to obey, fearing not what

man or any earthly chance might do to him. Thus dies John, the

beloved and trusted son of James Rogers, and the last of that

family.

John Rogers departed this life October 17th, the anniversary day of

his marriage to Elizabeth Griswold. She cannot fail to note that

fact, when the news reaches her. She is less than woman if, in the

hour of that discovery, she does not go aside to weep.

The day after this death, at another special meeting of Governor and

Council, it is enacted that “constant watch be kept about the house,

to seize and imprison all persons who may attempt to hold any

intercourse with the quarantined family.” Little do those who have

been forced to take charge at Mamacock and to punish all friendly

“intruders about the premises” appreciate the deep sorrow and

sympathy of these long-time neighbors and friends, who desire to

hear the particulars, to show respect for the departed and to render

aid to the family. Rudely rebuked, no doubt, are the most reasonable

efforts on the part of these friends, to prove their love and

fellowship in grief, although as yet no one else has the contagion

and all thoughts are centred on this one great bereavement.

When shortly Bathsheba, wife of John Rogers (now 2d) and their

eldest son, John, are stricken, the dark shadows deepen over

Mamacock, and friends of the family would fain show some sign of

fearless fidelity, not only to those afflicted, but to the teachings

of the New Testament and the Old, in regard to the power and good

will of God to hold even the direst pestilence in His hand. Much of

the endeavor on the part of these friends appears to be to provide

the family with such necessaries for their comfort as have not yet

been supplied by the authorities.

John Waterhouse and John Culver come over from Groton to secure news

regarding the sick and bring something likely to be needed in the

quarantine. The slightest attempt at such friendly aid excites

indignation and terror on the part of the authorities.

At one of the special meetings of Governor and Council (October 31)

“action is taken regarding the fact that several of the followers

of John Rogers have, contrary to express orders to the contrary,

presumed to go into the company of some that live in the Rogers

house, and further express orders are issued to these obdurate

persons, particularly John Culver and wife, John Waterhouse and

wife of Groton, Josiah Gates and wife of Colchester and John

Bolles and wife.”

That friends of the family have endeavored to supply them with

necessaries, on account of very tardy red tape regarding such

provision by the authorities, is strongly suggested by an order

accompanying the above, commencing: “Whereas it appears that a

meeting of the selectmen is necessary in order to their taking care

of the sick family,” it is hereby ordered “that notice shall be

given the selectmen to meet and consider what is fit to be done for

such as are confined in said families.” Yet it is not until the next

special meeting, over three weeks later (November 24), that it is

ordered that two suitable persons shall be constantly in attendance

“to lodge at the house of Jonas Hamilton or John Bolles” and “by

relieving each other, watch and ward night and day to understand the

state of the sick there and give information of what is needed.”

After this order, although other meetings are held by the Governor

and Council on the same account, there is no mention of any further

endeavors on the part of friends of the family to hold communication

with them.

Two more of the family die of the disease, Bathsheba, wife of John

Rogers, 2d, and John, their son. When all is over, John Rogers, 2d,

is called upon to pay the expenses of official nurses, guards,

provisions and medicines, a large bill, on which he is allowed no

reduction.

John Rogers having died intestate, his son John is appointed

administrator. The only heirs allowed by the court are the widow,

John Rogers, 2d, and Elizabeth Prentice, “only son” and “only

daughter,” among whom the estate is divided by due course of law.

When this form is ended, John Rogers, 2d, ignoring the fact that he,

as only son under the law, has “a double portion,” and Gershom and

Mary, the two children by Mary, are awarded nothing of this estate,

pays to each of these a liberal sum out of his own portion for

“share in” their “father’s estate” (as is still to be seen on the

town records). Well may Mary, if living, forgive this honorable man

for some things that displeased her in the past. He claims her

children as his father’s before the world; he claims them as brother

and sister of his own. He afterwards buys of them land at Mamacock,

which was given them by their father, Gershom’s land “having a house

thereon.”

To the ecclesiastic view, John Rogers has fallen, as to that view he

has lived, a fanatic, striving for such an impracticable end as to

resurrect the first Christian era into the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries. But the friends and followers of this leader

are sure that a Christian hero has passed from their midst, in no

ignoble way.

Here was a man who, had he chosen to fight worldly battles, in forum

or in field, might well have made a mark that all men had

acknowledged; but who, for the truth that is in the Gospel of Jesus

Christ, elected to lead through life a forlorn hope, humanly

speaking, as of one against a thousand or a score against a host. It

matters not that he but voiced the sentiments of a large number of

his own day (and a multitude of ours); it is a silent minority, that

dare not even to applaud a man who speaks their views, while the

popular leadership and power are on the other side.

Mamacock farm has been much enlarged since, by that name; it was the

old Blinman farm, and as such given to Elizabeth Griswold; it has

taken in lands to the north, south and west (across the Norwich

road). In a southeast corner of its present (1721) boundaries, close

by the river bank, are three graves that mark the earthly loss to

family and friends of that fearless visit to Boston. The sentiments

of the Rogerenes who view those mounds are: “The Lord hath given and

the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” They

gather closer to fill this great vacancy in their ranks and press on

under the same banner. If John Rogers, 2d, be not the next

leader-in-chief (as perchance he is) that banner will never falter

in his hands. John Waterhouse, as a preacher of rare eloquence and

power, wears the mantle well. John Bolles is in the prime of life,

being but forty-four years of age at the time of the death of his

chief. He will labor in this cause for many a year to come, with

ready voice and pen. Under his training and that of his wife Sarah,

a bevy of bright and energetic boys are growing up strong in the

faith, to join hands with the sons of John Rogers, 2d. Young Joseph

Bolles is soon to come to the front. Shortly another elder and

preacher rises, in the person of Andrew Davis. Here are enough to

hold the present band together and labor for its enlargement. The

authorities cannot take much encouragement, after the fall of the

great leader. He has builded for time to come.

In 1722 is passed an act directing dissenters to qualify under the

law of 1708, and such persons as neglect the public worship of God

in some lawful congregation, and form themselves into separate

companies in private houses, are to forfeit the sum of 40_s._ A fine

of £10 and a whipping to any person not a minister who shall dare to

administer the sacraments.

However this may be aimed at the Rogerenes, it evidently does not

reach them. If the authorities should endeavor to strictly enforce

this law in New London, there would undoubtedly be court records in

plenty regarding countermoves, and an overflowing prison, as will be

seen during a later attempt (1764-6) to enforce arbitrary laws of

this kind. For more than forty years previous to 1722 the Rogerenes

have ignored similar laws, and will continue the same course to the

end.

CHAPTER XI.

YEARS OF TRUCE.

For some years after the death of John Rogers, no serious

interference with the customs of the Rogerenes is recorded. The

countermoves directly preceding that death should, by all

precedents, be sufficient to secure them from molestation for a

considerable time to come.

September, 1724, occurs the sudden death of Governor Saltonstall, by

apoplexy. His family continue to reside in New London and to form an

important part of the leading membership of the Congregational

church.

Under the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall the half-way covenant was in

full force,[142] and under his administration as governor this

policy was applied to the colony at large.

Footnote 142:

“Although the practice of it” (half-way covenant) “did not begin

here” (New London) “until Mr. Saltonstall’s pastorate, yet it was

in the air, was practiced by most of the leading churches in the

Colony. But when the pastorate of Mr. Saltonstall began, we find

that the new way had gained a foothold. It was known as the

Presbyterian way. It was the system of all national churches, ...

all persons of good moral character living within the parochial

bounds were to have, as in England and Scotland, the privilege of

baptism for their children and access to the Lord’s table. (Ecc.

His. of Conn., pp. 28, 29.) It is to be understood that this

refers to persons who laid no claims to regenerate character.

There was no awakening in this church” (New London Congregational)

“nor indeed in N. Eng. worth mentioning before 1748—effect on this

church may be seen in the fact that during the first half century

of its existence not over 200 members were received and a full

century of its life passed without a religious awakening.”—_From

History of First Congregational Church of New London, by Rev. Mr.

Blake._

For forty years after the death of Governor Saltonstall, nothing

regarding the Rogerenes appears on the records of either of the

three courts. Yet there is abundant evidence that these people are

steadfastly continuing in the faith and practices of their sect,

holding their own meetings, in New London, Groton and elsewhere,

preaching their purely scriptural doctrines, and publishing books in

defense of their principles. Although not presented before the

County Court in this period, they are (as shown by the writings of

John Rogers, 2d, and John Bolles) frequently disturbed by the town

magistrates, who deal with them “at their own discretion.” That

entrance into the meeting-house was a last resort is shown by its

extreme infrequency as compared with the more or less constant and

severe aggravations to which they are subjected. The only evidence

of virulent measures in this period is the pitiless scourging

inflicted by Norwich authorities (1725) upon the Sunday party on

their way to Lebanon. (See Part I., Chapter I.) The officers and

others concerned in this proceeding appear to have been members of

the Norwich church, from which, as has been seen, were wont to issue

pursuers of the Rogerenes.[143]

Footnote 143:

This may account for the traditions credited by Miss Caulkins of

some sort of entrance into that church. (“History of Norwich.”) It

is possible that attacks from this church were only to be held in

check by some significant warning; but that there was any

disturbance of meeting seems disproven by absence of any court

record to that effect. The law regarding disturbance of meeting is

very explicit, calling for presentation before the County Court.

If any person shall come to any church or congregation, either

established or allowed by the laws of this colony, and disquiet

and disturb the same, such person or persons upon proof thereof

before any assistant or justice of the peace, by two sufficient

witnesses, shall be bound in £50 for appearance at next County

Court, and in default of same to be committed to prison to remain

until sitting of said court, and upon conviction of said offence

shall suffer the penalty of £20.

The following from the “Hempstead Diary” shows an imprisonment of

one or more Rogerenes at this period, and, in consequence, a

Rogerene attendance in Congregational church. The speaking appears

to have been so timid as not to disturb the services.

1725. _Sunday, Oct. 31._—Walter and John Waterus spake aloud att

ye Same Instant and said you Blaspheme the name of Christ or to

that effect. Jno. Rogers and Bolles and his wife sd Nothing till

meeting was over and yn complained much of the french barber

striking over one of their crew at the prison and brot the stick

wch he sd he Struck him with.

The offenses for which the Rogerenes are most liable to magisterial

punishment at this time appear to be travelling upon Sunday, when

they have occasion to attend a distant meeting, and performing

sufficient observable labor upon that day to assure their opponents

that they continue to deny its sanctity; although they take a

suitable portion of it for religious services. From them are

regularly collected fines for not training. These fines being

demanded by Cæsar (the purely civil government) are probably paid

without protest.[144] The church rates they never pay, no matter how

many fold more than the amount due is collected by execution on

their property, and still, as heretofore, they never appeal to the

court on account of the surplus retained.

Footnote 144:

No proof of refusal to pay these fines appears until a much later

date.

A considerable number of Rogerenes are located in the northeastern

part of Groton, among whom John Waterhouse and John Culver are

leaders. This is a sparsely populated district, where the

nonconformists are less exposed to such molestation and extortions

as assail those of New London. These Groton Rogerenes have Baptists

for their nearest neighbors, a sect agreeing with them in certain

particulars, but equally with the ruling order holding to the

observance of a “holy Sabbath.” It is certain that the Groton

Rogerenes have, sooner or later, some grievance against these

Baptists, evidently in connection with the question of Sunday

sanctity.

In 1728, John Bolles issues his “Application to the General Court of

Connecticut,” “in all the honor and submissive obedience that God

requires me to show to you,”—in which he states that he discovers in

the “Confession of Faith” which this court has established,

“principles that seem not to be proven by the Scriptures there

quoted,” and that he has drawn up some objections thereto which he

desires to be considered and “reply to be returned,” also that he

has “taken a journey for no other end but to deliver these

objections to one of the elders in each county in the colony.” As he

afterwards expresses it, “they disregarded my request.” In this

pamphlet he mentions various instances of cruel persecution to which

he and his friends have been subjected, and ends with these words:—

But we, on our parts, have had the witness of a good conscience

towards God in all our sufferings and loss of all these things,

and do make it our care to live inoffensively towards all men,

except in the case of Daniel, Chap. 6, Verse 5.[145] And whether

this be not oppressing and afflicting them that have no power to

help themselves for conscience’s sake,[146] let God be judge. Pray

peruse what is above written, and let it have a due sense upon

your minds; and so act and do in all the particulars above

mentioned, as you may have confidence and boldness to hold up your

heads before the great and terrible and righteous judge of all the

earth, when He shall come with his mighty angels in flaming fire,

taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel

of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Footnote 145:

Then said these men; We shall not find any occasion against this

Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his

God.—_Daniel 6, 5._

Footnote 146:

Viz.: by their principles of non-resistance.

That the religious standard of some of the principal members of the

Congregational church has not advanced since the time of Governor

Saltonstall is indicated by the following, from the “Hempstead

Diary”:—

1734. _Sunday, Sept. 29._ The late Gov. Saltonstall’s Pew stove

down the Door and 2 Pannels, it seems to be the effects of a

Contention between the two Brothers wives which of ye females

shall have the upper hand.[147]

Footnote 147:

This refers to the pew built for the Governor near the pulpit.

Miss Caulkins (“History New London”) mentions a similar contention

between prominent members of this church, under a somewhat earlier

date, in which the case was carried to court for final decision.

Two of the three sons of Governor Saltonstall, Nathaniel and

Gurdon, remained in New London. Rosewell, the eldest, settled in

Blanford and died in 1738. Of him Mr. Hempstead says in his

Diary:—“he was an Incomparable, well Disposed Gentleman, a good

Christian exaplary in his Living orderly and good in every

Relation.

Gurdon, 2d, was a leading man in New London and held numerous

important offices. Mr. Hempstead calls him “Col. Saltonstall” as

early as 1740. He lived in the Saltonstall homestead and

marshalled his fourteen children in the family procession for

church every Sunday, after the example of his father, the

governor. (“History of New London.”) His eldest child, Gurdon, 3d,

was born in 1734, and his second, Dudley, in 1736.

It is not surprising that an aristocracy so autocratic as to contend

with near relatives for supremacy of this kind should be bitterly

antagonistic to the Rogerenes, who not only shun worldly position

for themselves but refuse to be subject to its rule in all matters

pertaining to the Christian religion. Youth of the Congregational

church, who are to grow up under influences of the above

description, are destined, thirty years from this date, to be church

members themselves and to take part with their elders, as advocates

of a “holy Sabbath,” in a movement against the Rogerenes which is to

result in the great countermove of 1764-66, and the retaliatory

measures adopted in that contest.

We find in the “Hempstead Diary”:—“July 17, 1743, Hannah Plumb,[148]

a young woman, was baptized in ye river at ye town beach by Samuel

son of John Rogers.” This not only shows Samuel Rogers (son of John,

2d) to be a leading Rogerene, but is one of the proofs that some of

the Plumb family, the elder members of which are prominent in the

town and Congregational church, are of Rogerene persuasion; also

that the Rogerenes have got beyond the Mill Cove for baptisms.

Footnote 148:

It is shown by Hempstead’s Diary that Hannah Plumb was daughter of

John Plumb and baptized, as an infant, in the Congregational

church, December, 1723, also that her father was a nephew of Mr.

Hempstead, and her mother a daughter of Mr. Peter Harris. A son of

her uncle, Peter Plumb, married a granddaughter of John Bolles.

About 1735, John Culver and wife, with their sons and families,

together with other Rogerenes of Groton, emigrated to New Jersey,

where they founded a Rogerene settlement. (The cause of this removal

is unknown. The theory that it was to escape persecution is

weakened, not only by proof that the Culvers had proven themselves

of heroic mould in this struggle, but by the fact that there was a

cessation of virulent persecution at this time.) In the course of a

few years, they are found, with quite a following, at Waretown[149]

(in the southern part of what is now Ocean County), holding their

meetings in a schoolhouse. A man by the name of Weair, the founder

of Waretown, is one of their Society; an enterprising business man,

who is described as a most worthy Christian.[150]

Footnote 149:

They first settled in Morris County, N.J.—Schooley’s Mountain—but

soon moved south to above location. About eleven years later, they

seem to have returned to Schooley’s Mountain. In the latter part

of the eighteenth century, many of these New Jersey Rogerenes are

said to have removed to the “red stone country,” supposed to be

Virginia. Most of them had names indicative of Groton origin, as

Waterhouse, Mann, Lamb, etc., showing that other Groton people

either accompanied the Culvers to New Jersey or joined them there.

It would be interesting to know more of the New Jersey Rogerenes

than has been discovered. Very naturally, various fabrications

regarding the New London Rogerenes have become attached to them

also, simply because they were of the same sect.

Footnote 150:

Upon his gravestone is inscribed:—“In memory of Abraham Weair.

Died March 24, 1768, aged 85 years. Whose innocent life adorned

true light.”

The location of this little Rogerene community is about one hundred

and forty miles from Ephrata, Pa., where is a Society of Dunkers,

among whom are certain brethren who dwell apart from the secular

portion of the community, in a cloister. This Society observe the

seventh day as a Sabbath, and hold closely to New Testament teaching

and example, not discarding healing by faith and prayer and the

anointing with oil. The brethren of the cloister appear to believe

in direct enlightenment being accorded to such as lead devout lives.

They have acquired the name and fame of “holy men.” John Culver has

visited these brethren of the cloister, and a mutual friendship and

interest have resulted.

In 1744, a number of these Ephrata brethren, being on a pilgrimage

in the vicinity of the New Jersey Rogerenes, pay them a visit. The

reputation of these “holy men,” in regard to healing by prayer, and

also the fidelity of the Rogerenes to this scriptural mode, is shown

by the fact, recorded by the Pilgrims, that the New Jersey Rogerenes

brought their sick to them, in the hope that they might be restored

to health.[151]

Footnote 151:

The following brief but explicit counsel to his followers by John

Rogers, Sr., contained in one of his books, under the heading here

given, is all that has been found in Rogerene writings regarding

the doctrine of divine healing:—

CONCERNING GOD’S MINISTRATION BY SICKNESS.

In Time of Sickness, Ake or Pain, we are to examine our own

Hearts, to see and find out the cause of God’s Chastisement, and

to look up to Him who wounds, and whose Hands alone make whole,

who is the same Yesterday, Today and forever; and to attend the

Apostle Jame’s Direction. James 5, 13 etc. If any Man among you be

afflicted, let him pray; is any merry, let him sing Psalms; is any

sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let

them pray over him, anointing him with Oyl in the Name of the

Lord; and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick, and the Lord

shall raise him up; and if he have committed Sins, they shall be

forgiven him. Confess your Faults one to another, and pray one for

another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a

Righteous Man availeth much.—J. R.

The Culvers urge the Pilgrims to visit the Rogerenes of New London,

and with such effect that the brethren embark for Connecticut. They

land at Blackpoint, where they are received by a Rogerene of that

vicinity, who later escorts them to Bolles Hill, where they make

their headquarters at the house of John Bolles. They speak, in their

journal, of the Rogerenes as leading “a quiet life apart,” in the

country, and state that they had with them a “most peaceful visit.”

From the country they are escorted into the town, where they are

entertained at the house of Ebenezer Bolles (son of John), whom they

describe in their journal as “a blessed virtuous man.” They advise

him not to marry, not knowing that he is engaged to Mary, the

seventeen-year-old daughter of John Rogers, 2d, and has made his

house ready for the bride who is very shortly to occupy it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the town, by description of the

tourists, is in a state of agitation and excitement, on account of

rumors of war with Spain and the religious differences and public

disputes occasioned by the presence and preaching of the New Light

evangelists, the citizens vie with the Rogerenes in kindly and

interested attentions to the strangers, who speak highly of the

hospitality of the people and describe New London as “a fruitful

garden of God.” When the day for their departure arrives, the

Rogerenes provide passage for them to New York, to which “gifts” of

some kind are added, by reason of which the Pilgrims state that they

took away with them more than they brought. There is mention of

these strangers in the “Hempstead Diary,” under date of October 10,

1744, where they are described as men with beards eight or nine

inches long, without hats and dressed in white. By their own

description, a crowd followed them in New London wherever they went.

No mention is made by the Pilgrims of any unpleasantness between the

Rogerenes and their neighbors, unless the “quiet life apart” of the

former can be thus construed. That the Rogerenes sympathize with the

New Lights to a considerable degree is more than probable; yet they

seem to go their own way, undisturbed and unexcited by the

surrounding ferment.[152]

Footnote 152:

The “History of the German Sectaries” (Philadelphia, 1899) by

Julius F. Sachse, gives an account of this New London visit

derived from the Journal of the Pilgrims. By that history, it will

be seen that these Ephrata brethren were men of learning, and had

at the Cloister a printing-press, from which issued numerous

publications, in both German and English type. Products of this

press are among the rarest specimens of Americana.

New ecclesiastical laws have recently been enacted, largely on

account of the advent of the New Lights, and old laws are to be more

strictly enforced. The rulers are tightening the reins, and the

Rogerenes with other nonconformists are likely to receive a cut of

the lash. In 1745, Joshua Hempstead writes in his Diary:—

_Sunday, June 16._—John Rogers and Bolles and Waterus and Adrw

Daviss and about 20 more of their Gang, came Down into Town with a

cart and oxen and were taken up by the officers and Committed to

Prison, also 4 Women of their Company Came to ye Meetinghouse and

began to preach and were taken away to Prison also.

No clew is given to the cause of this move. A phalanx of Rogerenes

passing, on Sunday, slowly along the principal street of the town in

a cart drawn by oxen, each one of these non-combatants calmly and

cheerfully prepared to pay for their spectacular move by seizure,

imprisonment and fines, is fully as comical as it is tragic. Though

some of the spectators are in a rage, others must be overcome with

laughter, while sympathizers too politic to laugh outright smile in

their sleeves. The after-appearance, at or in the neighborhood of

the meeting-house, of four Rogerene women, fluent in Gospel

“testimony” regarding the unchristian proceedings of the

“authority,” is a fitting climax to this non-resistant menace.

No wonder that for nine years to come the entries in the “Hempstead

Diary” will contain no hint of any collision with the Rogerenes.

The generally tolerant spirit towards the Rogerenes during the last

twenty years is largely to be attributed to the conciliatory

character of the Rev. Mr. Adams, who, although he may not have felt

himself in a position to oppose the autocratic policy of Governor

Saltonstall, appears never to have instigated any attack upon the

nonconformists or taken an observable part in any such move. Nor, on

the other hand, do we find indication of any hard feeling towards

this minister on the part of the Rogerenes.

Who, it may be asked, are the Rogerenes of this period? Foremost

among the leaders on the New London side are John Rogers, 2d, and

John Bolles. There is a considerable following of families and

individuals in the town and vicinity, in no way allied to these by

relationship. The region about Mamacock and districts farther north

have, within the century, become largely occupied by families from

Rhode Island, who, being of Quaker and Baptist sympathies, are well

fitted for affiliation with the Rogerenes. It is not unlikely that

many of them have been attracted hither by that sect. Among these

are descendants of some who, having been persecuted by the ruling

church of Massachusetts, had retreated to Rhode Island for security.

Such would be nothing loath to aid in the bold stand so well

instituted in Connecticut. There are Rogerenes in Groton, Montville,

Colchester, Lebanon and Saybrook.[153] How many more converts are at

this date “scattered throughout New England” none could tell so well

as John Bolles, who has travelled extensively over the country

selling Rogerene books and expounding Rogerene doctrines. But the

solid nucleus of this Society is in the neighborhood of Mamacock and

just north of there, where the John Rogers and John Bolles families

and their neighboring followers are as a phalanx. They are, in the

main, a people of broad acres and ample means, industrious and

energetic; their young women are sought in marriage by promising

youth of other denominations, and their young men, evidently with

full parental consent, improve opportunities to take wives from some

of the best families in New London of wholly different persuasions

from their own. James, son of John Rogers, 2d, a young Rogerene of

great business ability, marries a daughter of Mr. Joseph Harris, and

permits his wife to have her child baptized in the Congregational

church,[154] of which she is a member. Evidently, the New London

Rogerenes agree with St. Paul in this regard. 1 Cor. vii, 14. About

1740, Capt. Benjamin Greene, of Rhode Island—a younger brother of

Gov. William Greene—established a home farm near Mamacock, at the

point called “Scotch Cap.” He is not only a shipmaster but the owner

of several vessels and their cargoes. His brother, the governor, is

a frequent visitor at Scotch Cap. The wife of Captain Greene is of

the Angell family of Rhode Island. Delight, daughter of Capt.

Benjamin Greene, marries John, son of John Rogers, 2d. The Greenes

are of both Quaker and Baptist sympathies. Samuel Rogers, son of

John, 2d, marries a daughter of Stephen Gardner, from Rhode Island,

whose family are of Quaker origin. The other marriageable son of

this date weds a daughter of Mr. John Savol (or Saville), a

prominent member of the Congregational church, afterwards of

Norwich. One daughter of John Rogers, 2d, marries a son of John

Bolles; another marries a young man of Groton whose father is an

enterprising business man from Rhode Island; the other four

daughters marry sons of members of the Congregational church (New

London and elsewhere), of high standing and ample means.

Footnote 153:

Since John Rogers resided as a pastor on the Great Neck from 1675

to 1699 he had undoubtedly a following of that locality.

Footnote 154:

Her first child was baptized in the Congregational church, but the

other children do not appear on the Congregational church records,

by which it may be judged that she was brought over to her

husband’s views in this particular.

The sons of John Bolles have not all taken wives from among the

Rogerenes, but are less allied to those of Congregational

persuasion; outside of their own sect they have most favored Baptist

women. The second wife of John Rogers, 2d, appears not to have been

a Rogerene before marriage, and the same may be said of the second

wife of John Bolles. If such facts are true of the chief leaders and

their children, we may easily judge of the alliances of their

followers with persons of other denominations, in this comparatively

quiet interval.

The above particulars are important as showing the social status of

the leading New London Rogerenes in the middle of the eighteenth

century, and proving that, although holding strictly to their own

opinions and customs, they are not only accounted honorable and

esteemed members of the community, but are so liberally inclined as

to be in a large degree connected with liberal members of other

sects. John Rogers, 2d, has said: “I abhor the abusing of any

sect.”—_Answer to Peter Pratt._ It appears likely that he also

abhors the isolation of any sect, believing men and women can differ

on certain religious points, and yet be friends and even partners

for life.

This ready association of the New London Rogerenes with friendly

people of other denominations, is but one of many evidences that the

chief contention of these people has not been regarding minor

matters of church government and customs, nor even so much in regard

to baptism and hireling ministers; but that the great struggle, from

first to last, has been for religious liberty; in asserting which

liberty they must oppose those who institute, enforce or uphold laws

inimical to free expression of religious belief, or individual

liberty in the form of worship. Having the high ground of apostolic

doctrines and usages upon which to found a strong opposition to

ecclesiastical tyranny, they have fought the good fight upon that

sacred foundation.

The indications are strong that by the middle of the eighteenth

century there is not so much friction between the Rogerenes and the

authorities in regard to the gathering of rates for the

Congregational ministry, but that the old, exorbitant methods of

seizure have declined to less grievous proportions. Nor does there

appear to be serious interference with Sunday labor or travelling,

which argues that the Rogerenes are not driven, by close watch and

frequent arrests, to any extraordinary demonstrations of their

disapproval of governmental meddling in matters of conscience. It

appears to be the policy at this period to let them alone on these

sensitive points, in consequence of which toleration they do not

consider it necessary to make their differences of belief so

distinctly prominent. Evidently, a large measure of the freedom for

which this sect has contended is already accorded; certain

ecclesiastical laws, not yet erased from the statute book, are

becoming, in the neighborhood of the Rogerenes at least, of the dead

letter order, which is the case with many other laws still upon that

book.

In June, 1753, occurs the death of John Rogers, 2d, in his eightieth

year. He has made a long and heroic stand, since at the age of

seventeen years he joined his father in this contest. To him is

largely due the size and strength of a sect that has called for the

bravest of the brave—and found them.

Fifteen children gather at Mamacock, to follow the remains of this

honored and beloved father to the grave, eight sons and seven

daughters, of the average age of thirty-four years, the eldest (son)

being fifty-two and the youngest (son) fourteen years of age.

Besides these, with their families, and the widow in her prime, is

the large gathering of Bolleses and other friends and followers in

the locality, also those of Groton and doubtless many from other

places.

They lay the form of this patriarch beside his father, his wife

Bathsheba and the children gone before, in the ground he has set

apart, in the southeast corner of his farm, as a perpetual burial

place for his descendants, close by the beautiful river that washes

Mamacock. They mark his grave, like the others in this new ground,

by two rough stones, from nature’s wealth of granite in this

locality, whose only tracery shall be the lichen’s mossy green or

tender mould.[155]

Footnote 155:

The early graves still discernible in this old family

burying-ground are marked by natural, uninscribed stones, which

was the ordinary mode before gravestones came into common use in

New England. In family burying-places, on farms or in

out-of-the-way places, the lack of inscriptions continued to a

comparatively late period. Many such old family burying-places

have been long obliterated. The preservation of this one is

probably due to its being secured by deed. (See New London Record,

November 13, 1751.) It is said that, despite the lack of

inscriptions, descendants in the earlier part of the nineteenth

century could tell who was buried in each of the old graves. The

railroad has cut off a portion of this burial ground, which

originally extended to the verge of the river. Tradition states

that some of the graves on the river bank were washed away at the

time of the great September gale (1813).

John Rogers, 2d, was a man of remarkable thrift and enterprise as

well as of high moral and religious character.[156] His inventory is

the largest of his time in New London and vicinity, and double that

of many accounted rich, consisting mainly of a number of valuable

farms on both sides of the Norwich road, including the enlarged

Mamacock farm, the central part of which (Mamacock proper), his home

farm, is shown by the inventory to be under a high state of

cultivation and richly stocked with horses, cattle and sheep. His

children had received liberal gifts from him in his lifetime.

Footnote 156:

There are numerous allusions to John Rogers, 2d, in the “Hempstead

Diary,” but a number of references to “John Rogers,” which in the

published Diary are credited to John, 2d, refer to his cousin,

Capt. John Rogers, of Great Neck vicinity, as does the statement

under October 4, 1735, that John Rogers “girdled the apple trees”

on the “Crossman lot.” This “Crossman lot,” on the Great Neck, by

“Lower Mamacock,” was in litigation between Capt. John Rogers and

Mr. Hempstead, for some time, and was finally accorded to Mr.

Hempstead. “Lower Mamacock” by “lower Alewife Cove,” is easily

confounded with “Upper Mamacock,” by “upper Alewife Cove,”

although they are six or seven miles apart.

Four of the eight sons of John Rogers, 2d, are now in the prime of

life, and not only landed proprietors but men of excellent business

ability. John, the youngest of the four, now in his thirtieth year,

is appointed administrator of his father’s estate and guardian of

his two minor brothers. James, the eldest, is a very enterprising

business man. That his coopering establishment is a large plant is

shown by the fact that he is, immediately after the death of his

father, the richest man in New London, his estate being nearly equal

to that left by his father.[157] The preamble of his will proved in

1754, shows him to have been a Christian of no ordinary stamp. Thus

soon, after the death of John Rogers, 2d, this worthy and capable

son, who must have been a man of large influence in the Society, is

removed. For some time previous to his death, he occupied, as a home

farm, the southern third of the enlarged Mamacock[158]—which fell to

him later by his father’s will—upon which was a “mansion house” said

to have been built of materials brought from Europe. His brother

Samuel has inherited the northern third of the enlarged Mamacock,

upon which he resided for some time previous to the death of his

father. His brother John has inherited the central part, or Mamacock

proper, which his father reserved for his own use.

Footnote 157:

This coopering establishment was located on Main Street, by the

Mill Cove, on land which had been given him by his father in 1725

(New London Record); it bordered the Mill Cove and there was a

wharf belonging to it. Tradition has confounded this James with

his son James, the only son of the former who reached middle life.

James, Jr., was remembered by some of the older people of the

middle of the nineteenth century and familiarly called “Jimmy

Rogers.” He succeeded to the business of his father, by the Mill

Cove, and continued it on a still larger scale, packing beef of

his own preparation, in barrels of his own manufacture, and

shipping it to southern markets. He was a very successful business

man; but the piety conspicuous in the character of his father is

not ascribable to this James, who appears not to have made any

profession of the Christian faith. He was a young man at the time

of the persecution of the Society to which his father belonged,

which was instituted by the denomination of which his mother was a

member, and which resulted in the blood-curdling scenes attendant

upon the countermove of 1764-6. Such scenes enacted by professing

Christians, in vengeful punishment of other professing Christians,

were calculated to make anything but a religious impression upon a

youth of the strictly practical turn of mind that is ascribed to

this James.

Footnote 158:

The farm now (1904) occupied by Mr. Henry Benham is a portion of

what was the James Rogers farm. A southern portion of the latter

was sold by heirs of James, Jr., to the Lewis brothers. The farm

inherited by Samuel Rogers is now owned by Mr. Stephen Comstock.

Mamacock proper, left to John Rogers, 3d, is the farm now owned by

Mr. Fitzgerald, including Mamacock peninsula. Each of these farms

had, originally, pasture and woodland on the west side of the

Norwich road.

All of the above farms were valuable in old times, when clearings

were the exception, being rich lands carefully cultivated.

All the sons of John Rogers have been well educated; John has marked

literary talent; his brother Alexander appears to be a schoolmaster

of uncommon ability, although farmer and shoemaker as well.[159]

Footnote 159:

Specimens of his penmanship still extant, would compare favorably

with that of modern masters. These specimens are in possession of

Mr. Gilbert Rogers, of Quaker Hill.

The eight sons of John Bolles are among the wealthiest and most

enterprising citizens of New London; several own valuable lands in

the very heart of the town, as well as farms outside; they are

business men as well as farmers. Ebenezer Bolles is one of the

richest merchants in New London. The moral character of these sons

of John Rogers and John Bolles is without reproach. They are

professing Christians of the most evangelical stamp. Their sisters

are wives of thrifty and upright men.

These people and their adherents are not only a strong business

element in this community, but they are a strong moral and religious

element. If the present policy of non-enforcement in regard to this

sect of the ecclesiastical laws which they are bound to resist

should be continued, there is every reason to expect that in another

generation they will mingle with the rest of the community in so

friendly a manner as to be willing to compromise regarding such

minor differences as the observance or non-observance of days.

In 1754, John Bolles issued in pamphlet form “A Message to the

General Court in Boston,” in behalf of the principles of religious

liberty. In a volume in which this pamphlet was republished are two

other publications of this author, one of which (apparently written

about this time) is the tract entitled “True Liberty of Conscience

is in Bondage to no Flesh.” In this tract, among accounts of

persecution inflicted on the Rogerenes, is the following (also noted

in Part I.):—

“To my knowledge was taken from a man, only for the cost of a

justice’s court and court charge for whipping him for breach of

Sabbath (so called) a mare worth a hundred pounds, and nothing

returned; and this is known by us yet living, to have been the

general practice in Connecticut.”

The “by us yet living” and “to have been” indicate that it was at a

time considerably previous to this writing that such great cruelty

and extortions were in vogue. Yet it also shows how easily, with no

such publicity as would be incurred by presentation before the

County Court, great persecutions could be carried on by town

magistracy, a possibility always existing under the ecclesiastical

laws relative to Sunday observances.

John Bolles took his “Message to the General Court” to Boston for

presentation, in 1754, making the journey of two hundred miles on

horseback, in his seventy-seventh year. (See Part I., Chap. VII.)

In the previous year—October, 1753—close following the death of John

Rogers, 2d, had occurred the death of Rev. Eliphalet Adams, after a

pastorate of over forty years in New London. It has been seen that

since the death of Governor Saltonstall no virulent persecution of

the Rogerenes has occurred, and that the character and policy of Mr.

Adams have been favorable to compromise and conciliation. But very

soon after the death of Mr. Adams there appear signs of a grievance

on the part of the Rogerenes of a character to call forth one of

their old-time warnings. Proof of this appears in the “Hempstead

Diary”:—

_March 17, 1754._ John Waterhouse of Groton and John Bolles and

his sons and a company of Rogerenes came to meeting late in the

forenoon service, and tarried and held their meeting after our

meeting was over, and left off without any disorder before our

afternoon meeting began.

It is thirty-three years since Mr. Hempstead has had occasion to

note such a noon meeting on the part of the Rogerenes. By what

official move this warning has been induced does not appear.

Evidently no violence was offered the Rogerenes. This meeting will

be a sufficient check for some time upon whatever attempts are on

foot to disturb them.

Two years later, J. Hempstead writes in his Diary: “1756, May 30.

John Waterhouse and a company came to our meeting.”

There is evidently some call for another warning. The Congregational

pulpit is, at this date, filled with temporary supply.

In this evident crisis, it is probable that none await the action of

the Congregational church in their choice of a minister with more

interest than do the Rogerenes. Upon the views and temper of Mr.

Adam’s successor will largely depend the continuance or

discontinuance of the generally pacific attitude on both sides,

which has continued for so many years. In the Congregational church

membership are town officials as well as those in still more

influential positions.

CHAPTER XII.

THE GRAND COUNTERMOVE (1764-1766).

It is not until 1757 that a new minister is installed over the

Congregational church, in the person of Mr. Mather Byles, Jr., a

talented and very resolute young man, twenty-three years of

age.[160]

Footnote 160:

The liberal salary, for those times, accorded this very young man

was £100 per annum and a gratuity of £240 every four years. Yet we

soon find him complaining of the insufficiency of his salary.

This youth is of such character and persuasion as to resemble, in

this particular community, a firebrand in the neighborhood of a

quantity of gunpowder. (After the gunpowder has exploded and Mr.

Byles determines to remain no longer in this vicinity, in taking

leave of the Congregational church he says: “If I have not the

Sabbath, what have I? ’Tis the sweetest enjoyment of my whole

life.”)

This young man, whose “sweetest enjoyment” is the Puritan Sabbath so

reprobated by the Rogerenes, naturally looks over the field to see

how he can best distinguish himself as a zealous minister of the

ruling order. He observes a large portion of this community taking

sufficient pains to demonstrate to all beholders that they are

pledged to follow no laws or customs, regarding religious affairs,

other than those instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ and His

inspired apostles, and that they are particularly called to bear

witness against that so-called “holy day” first instituted by the

emperor Constantine, which has, in an extreme form, been forced upon

the people of New England as a necessary adjunct to the worship of

God.

This zealous young minister appears to consider it his plain duty to

stem this awful tide of anarchy as best he may, lest it become a

torrent in New England that no man can stay. Thus he may distinguish

himself in a pulpit once occupied by the famous Governor Saltonstall

and succeed where even that dignitary failed. He will endeavor to

bring such new odium and wrath upon this obstinate sect as shall

effectually annihilate their Society.

Among the first efforts of Mr. Byles are sermons regarding the

sanctity of the Sabbath, accompanied by other attempts to arouse his

own people and the rest of the community (outside the Rogerene

Society) to the duty and necessity of putting a stop to any

desecration whatever of the “sacred” day.[161]

Footnote 161:

After the terrible scenes which have been brought about by his

policy, we find him, even in taking leave of the Congregational

church, complaining that the laws against the Rogerenes are “not

enforced.” If in the day of his disaster he is making such

complaint, what must have been his urgency at the time of his

confident entry upon this scene?

The Rogerenes soon find themselves not only preached to and against,

but seriously meddled with by the town authorities in ways for a

long time neglected. It is now again as in the days of John Rogers,

when he stated that “the priests stirred up the people and the mob”

against his Society.

The Rogerene countermove is almost unknown to this generation of

rulers; as for traditions concerning it, or the mild warnings of

1745 and 1754, perchance certain officials would be nothing loath to

see if they could not, by the trial of a more vigorous policy,

succeed better than did their predecessors in such contests, nor

would such officials be likely to anticipate lack of general public

sympathy in such an effort. It is as important to the Baptist church

as to the Congregational that Sunday should be accounted a sacred

day; let it be accounted otherwise, where would be attendants on

“divine worship”? Surely the young people would go to places of

amusement or of mischief, rather than to meeting-houses. The object

lesson presented by these upright and deeply religious Rogerenes,

whose youth are among the most exemplary and godly in the land, is

naturally lost upon a people who cannot trust the Lord himself to

furnish sufficient guidance for His church.

Joseph Bolles (born 1701), eldest son of John Bolles, is a leader

among the Rogerenes, standing shoulder to shoulder with his father

and John Waterhouse. He is a talented man, holding, like his father,

“the pen of a ready writer,” and is clerk of the Rogerene Society.

John Bolles being now over eighty years of age, this son largely

takes his place in the active work of the Society, on the New London

side. Yet the grand old patriarch, still vigorous in mind, sits

prominent in the councils, giving these active men and youth the

benefit of his experience, wisdom and piety, combined with an

enthusiasm as ardent as that of the youngest of them all.

The more the magistrates, inspired by Mr. Byles, re-enforce his

sermons by strict and unusual measures, the more do the Rogerenes,

following their olden policy in such emergencies, add to their

Sunday labors in the endeavor to fully convince their opponents that

they are not to be coerced in this matter.

Ere long, the Rogerenes are severely fined, and in lieu of payment

of such fines, which never have been voluntarily paid, are

imprisoned, sometimes twenty at a time, many of them being kept in

durance for a period of seven months. Their goods and the best of

their cattle and horses are seized, to be sold at auction and

nothing returned. Those having no such seizable property, are

imprisoned for non-payment of minister’s rates. In the midst of this

strenuous attack, Mr. Byles preaches an elaborate sermon, to be

published and circulated, in answer to what he calls the “Challenge”

of the Rogerenes, viz., their reiterated requests that the besieging

party will show them any Scriptural authority for the so-called

religious observance of the first day of the week, or for any

required “holy Sabbath” under the new dispensation. In this sermon

he calls the Rogerenes “blind, deluded, obstinate,” which terms are

quite as applicable to the church party, from the Rogerene point of

view. The onset continues, with added determination on the attacking

side and no show of weakening on that of the defense.

Since the pen is mightier than the sword, it may do good service in

such a time of peril as threatens the very existence of this devoted

sect. Joseph Bolles, sitting by his father’s side, sharpens his

quill to a fine point,[162] and the tremulous but earnest voice of

the faithful patriarch not only aids the theme, but speaks words of

comfort and of cheer; for is not this the cause of the Lord himself?

Footnote 162:

See extracts from “Reply to Mr. Byles,” by Joseph Bolles, in

_Appendix_.

There is another, John Rogers (3d), who, like his father and

grandfather before him, holds the pen of a ready writer. He was born

in 1724, three years after the death of his illustrious grandfather.

With the rapt attention, the retentive memory and the plastic mind

of youth, he has received from his father’s lips accounts of the

thrilling experiences of the past; as a young man, he has followed

the teachings and emulated the deeds of his people. He, too, will

sharpen a quill ere long.

[Particular attention is here called to the following reference to

Mr. Byles, in the “Reply of Joseph Bolles.” See _Appendix_ for full

connection. “It is this sort of ministers that preach to the General

Court to suppress or persecute them that walk by the apostle’s

doctrine, for not observing this Sabbath which he” (Byles) “says the

apostles ‘left to after discoveries.’” It is certain that the

Rogerenes are under no difficulty in discerning from whence emanates

the influence that has set this new persecution on foot and is

continuing it to a crisis.]

The first efforts at repression proving ineffectual, severer

measures are adopted by the attacking party. Yet there are several

years more of patient endurance and forbearance on the part of the

Rogerenes before they resolve to turn upon their foes the sole

effectual means of defense at their command in times like these.

Among legal weapons available to the church party are four

ecclesiastical laws, the strict application of which—as regards the

Rogerenes, at least—have fallen into disuse, viz.: the law against

Sunday labor, that against going from one’s house on Sunday except

to and from authorized meetings, the law against unauthorized

meetings and those holding or attending such meetings, and the law

by which any one not attending meetings of the ruling order or the

services of some authorized Society of which he is a member, in a

regular meeting-house on Sunday, can be fined for every such

absence.[163] (Besides these are the large fines for baptizing and

administering the Lord’s Supper on the part of unauthorized

persons.)

Footnote 163:

There are traditions among descendants of the Rogerenes to the

effect that one of the features of the persecution that called

forth the countermove of 1764-6 was molestation of the Rogerenes

for not attending regular (“lawful”) meetings. This tradition is

found in different families situated far apart. Mr. John R. Bolles

received such a statement from his mother (who was a daughter of

John Rogers, 3d). Since this history asserts nothing upon

tradition, this cannot be stated as a proven fact, although it

appears fully probable.

It is optional with the town magistrates to present persons guilty

of breaking any of the above laws before the next County Court or to

deal with such “at their own discretion,” a discretion which in a

number of instances has taken the form of lynch law, by giving the

offenders over to a mischievous mob. It is not the policy at this

time to present the Rogerenes before the County Court; not only

would such publicity be liable to create outside sympathy with the

Rogerenes, but the fines of this court for such offenses are limited

to an inconsiderable amount, expressed in shillings, while the

“discretion” of the town magistrates allows of serious fines,

expressed in pounds, as well as imprisonment, stocks and stripes.

The damaging effect of a friendly jury is also to be avoided. (But

one reference to the Rogerenes is to be found on the records of the

County Court during the more or less turbulent period between 1758

and 1766; this reference occurs in regard to the barring of the

doors of the New London prison by the prisoners, for which the

penalty is conspicuously slight.—See end of this Chapter.)

While this persecution, the most virulent that has ever been visited

upon the Rogerenes as a Society, is nearing a crisis, occurs the

death of Ebenezer Bolles, June 24, 1762, at the age of fifty-four,

through contact with “poisonous wood.”[164] An obituary notice, in

the next issue of the _Connecticut Gazette_, attests to the wealth,

integrity, hospitality and general worthiness of this New London

merchant, and also states that no physician or medicines were

allowed in his sickness,[165] he “belonging to the Society of

Rogerenes.”

Footnote 164:

There are said to be indications (J. S. Sachse) that memorial

services for Ebenezer Bolles, as entertainer of the Pilgrims in

1744, were held at the Ephrata Cloister. In a reference to his

death, on the records of the Cloister, is this invocation: “God

grant him a blessed resurrection!”

Footnote 165:

The ineffectiveness of medicines and applications to even

alleviate the symptoms of such poisoning, after the malady is

fully under way, is well known. Yet neither with nor without the

use of medical means would death be expected to ensue in such a

case. That there was an unsuspected complication in this instance,

leading to sudden death, seems probable. To persons living in the

country, as did the Rogerenes for the most part, an illness so

common as poisoning by ivy or by alder (apparently the latter in

this case) would not be regarded of a really dangerous character,

however distressing. There have been persons greatly bloated and

in great suffering by such poison, whose condition gave no serious

alarm and who recovered in the usual period.

The account of this death, as of that of John Rogers in 1721, is

important; since it affords proof, more than forty years after the

latter event, that this Society are as unswerving as ever in their

adherence to Scriptural methods. How much reason has John Bolles,

now in his 86th year, to discard this faith, even in the day of his

great bereavement? He has still twelve children in health and vigor,

between the ages of 60 and 20, eight of whom are destined to live to

the following ages: 94, 91, 85, 84, 83, 82, 78, 75, and the other

four beyond middle life. In the Rogers and other leading Rogerene

families there appears a like flourishing condition.

After more than five year’s continuance of aggravations instituted

and continued under the leadership of Mr. Byles, which have finally

reached a stage past endurance, the Rogerenes, on both sides of the

river, are gathering in council about a common campfire, to consider

the move that must be made, a countermove beside which the entrance

of John Rogers and his wheelbarrow into the meeting-house in 1694

shall pale to insignificance.[166] The plan concluded upon bears the

stamp of such veterans in the cause as John Bolles and John

Waterhouse, as well as of keen young wits besides. They will give

their enemies all the attendance upon meetings in “lawful

assemblies” on their part, that these enemies will be likely to

invite for some time to come; they will enter into those assemblies,

and, if necessary, there will they testify against this “holy

Sabbath,” for the non-observance of which they are again so bitterly

persecuted, and against such other features of the worship of their

enemies as are opposed to the teachings of the New Testament. So

long as the ecclesiastical laws which forced their sect into

existence are executed against them, so long will they enter into

those assemblies thus to testify. The unscriptural features against

which they will testify are easily set forth, and to these the

testimony shall be strictly confined, with no mention of themselves

or their wrongs. For whatever comes of this testimony, made in the

name of the Lord Jesus Christ in accordance with His teachings, and

after the example of His apostles, they are prepared, even though it

be martyrdom. The first attempt shall be of a tacit nature; if that

avail as a warning, well and good; they will not disturb the

meetings unless compelled to such extremity.

Footnote 166:

Quakertown traditions regarding this period are no less thrilling

than those of New London side, and point to measures reaching even

into the wilds of Groton. Only by spies and officials in the

vicinity of the Groton Rogerenes, could they have been made to

share in the persecution. As before said, most of their neighbors

were Baptists. A historical account of the Baptist church of that

vicinity avers, apparently from tradition, that some of the Groton

Rogerenes came to that church in this period, bringing work,

interrupting the minister, etc. If the Groton Rogerenes were

seriously molested by these Baptists, it is not unlikely that they

instituted a countermove on that church for protection; but we

have been unable to discover any proof of the accuracy of the

statement regarding disturbance of the Baptist meetings, no record

regarding such disturbance having been found, or any contemporary

mention of the same. (See “Quakertown Chapter.”)

The fact that the Rogerene leaders of Groton were closely related

to some on the New London side, added to the fact that they were

church brethren, is sufficient to account for their joining with

the Quaker Hill people in the New London countermove. John

Waterhouse had a son of the same name living on Quaker Hill at

this time, on a farm that had been given to him by his father.

Mild indeed seems that first countermove (1685) when Capt. James

Rogers, by the commotion which his “testimony” called forth in the

meeting-house caused “some women to swound,” in comparison with that

of the Sunday, June 10, 1764, when a procession of Rogerenes from

Quaker Hill, re-enforced by friends from Groton, and including men,

women, and children, wends its solemn and portentous way into the

town, to enter into the midst of their persecutors.

Upon reaching the meeting-house, a number quietly enter, others

remain outside. The men who enter keep on their hats, in token of

dissent to the doctrines of this church. If some of these hats

chance to be broad-brimmed, so much the better. Wonderingly and

fearfully must the larger part of the congregation behold this

entrance and the quick-rising ire on the faces of such church

members as are most responsible for its occurrence. As for Mr.

Byles, his sensations may be imagined. He is in the midst of his

usual long prayer[167] containing copious information to the Creator

of the Universe, together with thanks and commendation to the same

Almighty Power, for many circumstances which have been brought about

by men in direct disobedience to His revealed Word; also petitions

for the forgiveness of the sins of this congregation, some of the

most serious of which—as persecution of their neighbors—they fully

intend to commit over and over again. In all probability some

portion of this prayer is aimed directly at the Rogerenes, in regard

to keeping “holy” the Sabbath day.

Footnote 167:

It was usually in the time of this unscriptural prayer that the

countermove took place.

Some commotion, caused by the entrance of the Rogerenes, compels Mr.

Byles to open his eyes before this long prayer is at an end. When he

does open them, he beholds these men with their hats on and these

women engaged in knitting, or some small sewing, in token that they,

too, are Rogerenes.

How long certain officials, and other church members, restrain

themselves is uncertain, even if they restrain themselves at all

from vengeance dire; but before the prayer is regularly ended, the

Rogerenes are fallen upon and driven out of the meeting-house with

great violence and fury, while those in waiting outside are attacked

with like rage, prominent church members and officials kicking and

beating unresisting men, women and children and driving them to

prison.

This treatment but deepens the determination of the Rogerenes. It is

evident that merely keeping on their hats and doing a little

knitting or sewing will not answer for an emergency like this. It

must be no fault of theirs if this effort in the Master’s cause

shall fail. They now enter the assembly of their persecutors to

declare, by word of mouth and with no lack of distinctness, against

the false doctrines of this persecuting church. This testimony will

they add to the silent mode of disapproval until these enemies

desist from their unendurable attempts at coercion, and from these

furious beatings, kickings, drivings, imprisonments, etc.