... But forasmuch as we have obtained mercy and grace by Jesus

Christ, and are thereby reconciled to God, and made heirs of a

better kingdom, and are but strangers, pilgrims and sojourners

here, we are not to mix ourselves with the children of this world,

by joining with them in their kingdom, to judge, or condemn, or

torture any man for his sin, seeing we are under another

ministration, having not been condemned by Christ for our sins;

neither are we to join with them to kill or slay our fellow

creatures, seeing Christ hath rebuked the use of the sword in the

hands of his followers; and except we deny ourselves in all these

things, and take up our cross and follow him, we cannot be his

disciples....

CONCERNING THE SABBATH.

_Extracts from a Reply by John Rogers, Sr. (1721), to a Book by

Benj. Wadsworth, entitled “The Lord’s Day Proved to be the

Christian Sabbath.”_

... When God’s children were in a holy frame and agreed to fast

and pray, they did it not with a mixt multitude in public

assemblies, as hypocrites are wont to do; as appears Neh. 9, 1, 2.

The children of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, in

time of offering up their prayers unto God. Acts 1, 13, 14. And we

nowhere read, throughout the whole Bible that God’s children ever

prayed in a public assembly, with a mixt multitude, and in a

customary way, as hypocrites are wont to do, as throughout the

whole scripture doth appear. Rom. 8, 26.

... This have I written that people may not be misled, by thinking

they worship God in forms and set times of prayer, while they are

in a state of sin; and that they may consider the publican, upon

his first prayer, accompanied with true repentance, went away

justified rather than the other that was zealous in his often

fasting and prayers....

In page 5th sayth he: “The apostle doth not oppose the keeping one

day in a week holy to God.” To which I answer, It is not what the

apostle doth not oppose, but what the apostle commands, I Pet. 1,

16, “Be ye holy for I am holy.” An unholy man cannot do one holy

act, no more than a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit: but I

have no where read in the books of the New Testament that we are

commanded to keep one day more holy than another....

... And the next place, I shall shew that the first commandment

that both the angel of God and Christ himself gave forth to his

apostles was to make the first day of the week (the day of his

resurrection) a day of labor by travelling out of one province

into another.... Thus it appears that had they believed them that

was sent by the angel of God and by Christ himself they should

have set out on their journey early in the morning for Galilee,

which was in another province, and by all probability more than

one day’s journey, as appears in the 2nd chapter of Luke, which

shews that Christ’s parents went a day’s journey towards Galilee

before they missed him.... So that it appears that Christ had no

regard to the day, otherwise than to make it a day of labor ...

through their unbelief they were disobedient to the message that

Christ sent them and did not make it a day of labor by travelling,

as they were required by the angel of God and by Christ himself;

which journey according to history was above 40 miles and the

message was sent them in haste, to set out upon this journey, upon

the first day of the week, the day of Christ’s resurrection.

In page 6th he quotes Gen. 2, 2, 3, which speaks only of God’s

resting from the works of creation, when all things were finished

and “was very good” ... and this God’s Sabbath or rest from his

works of creation had no evening or morning ascribed to it,

because it was his eternal rest or Sabbath, all things being now

finished. And it could be no Sabbath or rest to Adam, for he had

done no work to rest from, for he was the finishing work, ... So

that Adam in his first creation entered into God’s Sabbath and so

continued, till he by sin brought labor upon himself ... and we

have no account in Scripture of any Sabbath commanded or kept from

Adam till Mose’s time, ... For when God delivered the two tables

of the ten commandments, he gave Moses a particular account about

the seventh-day sabbath, how it was a sign, as is seen Exod. 31,

12 etc. compared with the last verse.... And a sign is not the

thing signified by it, any more than a shadow of a thing is the

substance....

In page 19 he quotes ... “I was in spirit on the Lord’s day.”...

that is, I was spiritualized on the Lord’s day of his revelation

for that work he employed me in, but here is no account what day

or days it was of the week or month, this God hath not revealed to

us.... But for any to affect it to be on a first day of the week

is presumption, seeing no such name in Scripture was imposed on

the first day of the week in any other place of the Scripture....

In page 27, he quotes Acts 20, 7, “And upon the first day of the

week” ... This text tells us the disciple’s coming together was to

break bread; it does not say to celebrate a Sabbath, or give the

day any pre-eminence above the five other working days ... the

word breaking of bread is used in common eating, Acts 2,

46.—“breaking bread from house to house,”—Christ brake bread to

two of his disciples and also when Christ fed 5000.... And in this

place it is said they came together to break bread, and Paul was

at that time tending a ship, as appears....

But as to the Lord’s Supper, it was always attended at supper

time, ... It was first instituted by Christ at supper ... And

Paul, the Gentile apostle, hath left it on record that he did

deliver it to the Gentiles to be attended in the night, as appears

I Cor. 11, 23.... The Gentile churches attended the time and

season, tho’ they got into a disorderly way of partaking of it,

yet they attended the season ... “For in eating every one taketh

before other his own supper.”... So that we see this coming

together to break bread, on the first day of the week, was not for

preaching (but a feast of charity), for that was attended the

night following (when the young man fell from the loft), nor for

the Lord’s supper.

The following is at the end of the book containing the answer to

Benjamin Wadsworth. The “questions” were written in New London

prison at the time John Rogers was confined there on account of

troubles arising out of the arrest and imprisonment of Sarah Bolles

for a “matter of conscience.”

The following questions were presented as they are underwritten,

but when I saw I could obtain no answer but persecution, I then

presented them to a Superior Court in the colony New London, and

from them to the next General Court in that Colony, and so to the

Elders and Messengers of the churches of the Colony of

Connecticut, requesting of them an answer, upon the consideration

of the Confession of their own Faith and the good counsels there

given, and printed in New London, in the year 1710. And here

follows an account of some part of what I presented to them, taken

out of the Confession of their own Faith.

In page 6. “First Counsel. That you be immovably and unchangeably

agreed in the only sufficient and invariable rule of religion,

which is the Holy Scriptures, the fixed canon, uncapable of

addition and diminution. You ought to account nothing ancient that

will not stand by this rule, nor anything new that will. Do not

hold yourselves bound to unscriptural rites in religion, wherein

custom itself doth many times misguide. Isai. 8, 20. To the law

and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it

is because there is no light in them.”

“Second Counsel. That you be determined by this rule in the whole

of religion. That your faith be right and divine, that the Word of

God must be the foundation of it and the authority of the Word the

reason of it, etc. For an orthodox Christian to resolve his faith

into education, instruction and the persuasion of others, is not

an higher reason than a Papist, Mahometan or Pagan can produce for

his religion.”

Page 7. “Believe, in all divine worship, it is not enough that

this or that act of worship is not forbidden in the word of God;

if it be not commanded, and you perform it, you may fear you will

be found guilty and be exposed to divine displeasure. Nadab and

Abihu paid dear for offering in divine worship that which the Lord

commanded them not. It is an honour done unto Christ, when you

account that only decent, orderly and convenient in his house

which depends upon the institution and appointment of Himself, who

is the only head and lawgiver of his church.”

Page 65. “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it

free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in

anything contrary to his word, or not contained in it: so that to

believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of

conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the

requiring an implicit faith and an absolute and blind obedience,

is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also. Acts 4, 19.

Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more

than unto God, judge ye. Acts 5, 29. We ought to obey God rather

than men. Jam. 4, 12. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save

and to destroy: Who art thou that judgeth another? Col. 2, 22. But

in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines commandments of

men? Mat. 15, 9. Which all are to perish with the using, after the

commandments and doctrines of men. John 4, 22. Ye worship ye know

not what. Hos. 5, 11. Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment

because he willingly walked after the commandment.”

These are the scriptures they quote for their proof, with many

more. All these quotations, quoted out of the book of the

Confession of their own Faith, with much more, was presented to

the abovesaid Courts, Elders and Messengers of said churches, with

the following questions, grounded upon the said Confession of

their pretended Faith, but can obtain no answer but violence to

compel us to rebel against it, as will appear by said questions as

followeth.

To Richard Christophers Assistant, and from him to Gov.

Saltonstall and Eliphalet Adams.

I request of you, as you profess yourselves to be Christians, and

the Scripture to be your rule, to give me a direct answer to these

scriptural questions, Rom. 4, 15. “For where no law is, there is

no transgression.”

My question is, Hath God any law to forbid labor on the first day

of the week? If he hath, quote chapter and verse for it, to

convict us of our error, or be convicted that you will be found

fighters against God, in striving to compel us to worship the

works of your own hands, which would be idolatry in us.

And consider the age and antiquity of an idol doth not make the

sin one whit the less, but the greater; for God’s patience and

long suffering towards idolaters should lead them to repentance.

A second question I crave of you is, Whether the name “Sabbath”

(which you impose upon the first day of the week in your law book)

be a title that God by his word hath put upon it? If it be, pray

quote the chapter and verse, where it is so named by God’s word;

if not, judge yourselves.

A third question I crave your answer to is, Whether the name

Lord’s Day (which you impose in your law book on the first day of

the week) be a Scripture name peculiar to that day? And how you

prove the revelations of Jesus Christ to John was upon the first

day of the week?

And if you cannot answer the said questions by the holy

Scriptures, then I request of you to read and to consider what is

written, Psal. 94, 20, 21. “Shall the throne of iniquity have

fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather

themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn

the innocent blood.” From the New London Prison, the 17th of the

9th month, 1719.

And here follows a copy of my request to Court Elders and

Messengers, wrote under the above questions as it is here.

My request to you is, That you will be pleased to see that an

answer to my questions may be returned, by you or your elders, as

you will answer it before God, the judge of Heaven and earth, and

that we may not be compelled by the Authority to offer to God in

divine worship that which he hath not commanded, against our

consciences, and contrary to the Confession of your own Faith; and

if God hath commanded the first day of the week to be kept for a

Sabbath, to quote to us the place in Scripture where it is so

commanded, and send it to us: And if there be no command of God

for it in the Holy Scriptures, and only your own law in your Law

Book, and your minister’s doctrine for it, then I desire you to

read and consider what is written, Mat. 15, 7th, 8th and 9th

verses, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth

me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain

they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of

men.”

New London, the 7th of the third month, 1721. From him that wishes

you well, and desires to see your salvation and not your

destruction.

But I could obtain no answer from them; “For every one that doeth

evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds

should be reproved.” John 3, 20.

And now my request to you, the said Courts, Elders and Messengers,

is, in the presence and view of the world, to shew us chapter and

verse, or verses, where God’s command is which commands the

keeping the first day of the week for a Sabbath, by which you are

not in the same danger Nadab and Abihu was, that we may escape

with you; for I can find no such commandment throughout the whole

Bible: For you, in the Confession of your Faith, set before us the

great danger we are in, if we offer to God that in divine worship

which he hath not commanded; not only the loss of our lives, as

Nadab and Abihu did theirs, but eternal damnation also; as appears

in your “Confessions of Faith,” Page 7, and in your second Counsel

(before quoted).

Upon this consideration, I request this favor of you, so that we

may venture in with you in keeping of it, by a commandment from

God, if you know of any, for this will be more for your honour

than to compel us against our own consciences (and your own

counsels) by your own law, accompanied with your whips, stocks,

fines and imprisonments; which hitherto you have been using to

compel us to offer in divine worship that which God hath not

commanded; and besides this, we are ashamed (I do not say you) to

pretend to be “orthodox Christians” and “to resolve our faith into

education, instruction, and the persuasion of others,” seeing you

say in your “Confession,” page 6, that “this is no higher reason

than a Papist, Mahometan or pagan can produce for his religion;”

for we would not be like such spoken of in Zeph. 3, 5, “The unjust

knoweth no shame.”

Thus it appears nakedly before your eyes, and to your consciences,

that either your Counsels, in the Confession of your Faith, is

very erroneous, or else your first day Sabbath, if it have no

command of God for it, which I can find nowhere throughout the

whole Bible—and that which can be found nowhere may well be

concluded not to be at all. And the said Counsels in the

Confession of your Faith is so substantially grounded on the holy

Scriptures that I think it most safe to conclude that it is your

Sabbath that is erroneous and idolatry (except you have a

commandment of God for it) by the Confession of your own Faith.

I having been treating upon your Sabbath, the foundation almost of

all your worship, which is the works of your own hands, by your

own Confession, except you can find a commandment of God for

it....

_The following from “A Midnight Cry,” by John Rogers, Sr._

I desire that these following things may be well considered.

First, when God delivered the two tables of stone into the hands

of Moses, he gave him a particular account about the Sabbath how

it was a sign, as is to be seen Exod. 31, beginning at verse 12 to

the end of the chapter, yea, it was a covenanted sign to that

people, as is to be seen, verse 17. Ezek. 20, 12, 20.

Secondly, Moses testifieth to Israel that it was commanded to be

kept upon the account of that deliverance out of Egypt, as is to

be seen Deut. 5, comparing the 12, 13 and 14 verses with the 15th

verse. So that as their deliverance was from a temporal bondage,

so the sign of it was a temporal rest; and the sign was for a

covenant between God and them, of his safe protecting them from

the oppression of their enemies, in that inheritance which he gave

them while they kept his laws.

Thirdly, Christ testifieth that the priests profaned the Sabbath

in the temple and yet were blameless, Mat. 12, 5, compared with

Numb. 28, 9, 10, so that we may well conclude those sacrifices by

which they profaned the Sabbath, though they were but signs in

themselves, yet the Sabbath which was of less value was to give

place that the greater might not be omitted.

Fourthly; The man that bore a burden on the Sabbath day, to wit,

his bed, John 5, 10, profaned it in so doing, and was as blameless

as the priests; for that sign under the law was not the Sabbath,

any more than that circumcision commanded to Abraham was the

circumcision, and therefore, saith the apostle, That is not

circumcision that is outward in the flesh, Rom. 4, 12. Thus we see

he calls it the sign of circumcision, though the scriptures did no

where call it a sign, but called it circumcision; but the 7th day

Sabbath God declared to be a sign, yea, a covenanted sign with his

people, as circumcision was, as is to be seen, by comparing these

places of scripture together, Exod. 31, 13, 16, 17. Gen. 17, 10,

13 and 14.

Fifthly, Seeing that God testifieth that the weekly 7th day

Sabbath is a sign, and gave no such plain demonstration of any

other of the Sabbaths under the law, we have good and better

reason to judge that Paul’s words, Col. 2, 16, 17 (Let no man

therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy

day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a

shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ) comprehends

the 7th day Sabbath in a special manner, seeing it agrees with

God’s testimony to Israel, that it was a sign to them, and a sign

is not the substance; for a shadow is but the sign of the

substance.

And lastly, Seeing that God testifieth to Israel that the 7th day

Sabbath was a sign, so it was no more the Sabbath than the seven

stars which John saw in the right hand of Christ were the angels

of the seven churches, nor no more the Sabbath than the seven

golden candlesticks were the seven churches, nor no more the

Sabbath than those fat kine that Pharaoh saw were the seven

plentiful years; which sort of creature (we afterwards read) they

made an image of and worshipped; nor no more the Sabbath than the

sign of circumcision was the circumcision; nor no more the Sabbath

(under the first covenant) than the wine that Christ gave his

disciples to drink was the blood of the New Testament or covenant;

nor no more the Sabbath (under the first testament) than the bread

that Christ gave to his disciples was his body under the second or

new covenant.

Thus we see that signs (in the Scripture) bear the complete name

of the substance or thing they signify; so the 7th day Sabbath was

a sign under the first covenant, and so continued till the

establishment of the second, and then both the covenant and signs

under it ceased; for they were signs of instruction to the church,

that they might impose their faith on the things they signified,

which were to be fulfilled by Christ, who was the substance of

them all; and so at his coming they were all nailed to his cross,

and so ceased. Eph. 2, 15, 16. Col. 2, 14. And so likewise the

signs that are now in being (under the new covenant) are to

continue till Christ’s coming in his manhood, I Cor. 11, 26, and

then they will cease also.

“ADVERTISEMENT.”

JOHN ROGERS, SR.

Whereas there is a printed law in her Majesty’s Colony of

Connecticut, entitled only “Heriticks,” in the preface to it they

say “To prevent the danger persons are in of being poisoned in

their judgments and principles by hereticks,” etc.

Which said law the queen by advice of her council hath condemned,

repealed and declared it void and of none effect, it being

contrary to their charter. And indeed there is a good hand of God

in the Queen’s act, for I know of no sect worse poisoned in their

judgments and principles by gross heresy than the Church of New

England; and it is very evident that hereticks have ever

persecuted the true church under abusive titles, as deceivers,

hereticks, Quakers, and the like abusive titles, which they

themselves are guilty of; for erroneous persons, principles and

practices are condemned by the scriptures of truth; so that they

have no other way to cloak themselves, under their delusion and

heresy, but by casting such like odious titles on the children of

God, and so persecute them and burn their books; for Satan’s

design in making use of these deluded persons, thus to act, is to

suppress truth under pretense of heresy; as for instance I shall

begin with the master of the house, whom they called Beelzebub,

the prince of devils, Mat. 12, 24. He went by the name of

“deceiver,” Mat. 27, 63. Paul by the name of heretick, Acts 24,

14. Luther’s books were burnt under pretense utterly to suppress

heresy; the worthy martyrs in Queen Martyr Mary’s time suffered

death under the name of hereticks; and those worthy martyrs in

Boston in New England under the name of Quakers and hereticks; and

my books by this law now repealed have been condemned and burnt,

under pretense of heresy, though I have made fair proffers at

their General Court to reward any person well for their time and

pains that would endeavor to show me any one error in them, but

none have yet publickly appeared.

FOLLOWING FROM ACCOUNT OF SAMUEL

BOWNAS OF HIS “CONVERSATION

WITH JOHN ROGERS,” 1703.

He (John Rogers) spoke very much of his satisfaction and unity

with George Fox, John Stubbs, John Burnyeat and William Edmundson

as the Lord’s servants, with sundry others of the first visitors

of that country, that he knew them to be sent of God, and that

they had carried the reformation further than any of the

Protestants ever did before them, since the general apostacy from

the purity both of faith and doctrine; first the church of England

they did nothing in the end but made an English translation of the

Latin service used before, the Presbyterians they dissented and

the Independants, but came not to the root of the matter; the

Baptists dissented from the other three, but went not through.

Upon which, though I could not wholly agree with him in his

assertions, I queried if he thought that all these several steps

of the English church from Popery, the Presbyterians and

Independants from the English church, and the Baptists from all

three of them, had not something of good in them, viz. I mean

whether the first concerned in dissenting from Popery, though they

afterwards rested too much in the form of worship in the Episcopal

way, had not the aid of Christ’s spirit to assist them in their

dissent? And so for all the rest. This he did readily grant to be

a great truth; and so allowing that the first reformers actuated

by divine light, and being faithful to what was made known to

them, had their reward; and their successors sat down in that form

their predecessors had left them in, but did not regard that Power

and Life by which they were actuated, and so became zealots for

that form, but opposed the Power. “And this,” said he, “is the

true cause of the several steps of dissent one from another; and

the reason why there is so little Christian love, and so much

bitterness and envy one against another, is their sitting down

contented, each in their own form without the Power, so that they

are all in one and the same spirit, acting their part in the

several forms of worship in their own wills and time, not only

opposing the Spirit of Truth, but making it the object of their

scorn and those who adhere to it the subject of their reproach,

contempt and envy; and this is the foundation of persecution” said

he....

FROM REPLY TO J. BACKUS.

JOHN ROGERS, 2D.

... Here I think he (Backus) does the government no honor by

informing the world that they have made laws to debar such as

differ from them in matters of religion the liberty of the king’s

highway to pass to their own meetings, since our lord the king

hath granted equal liberty of conscience to all dissenters to hold

their meetings and serve God according to their consciences....

In his 13th page he gives a record (of his own making) relating to

John Bolles, which record declares that J. Bolles acknowledged

that he came from New London, and was going to Lebanon, and that

he knew it was contrary to our law, and that they did it in

defiance of the law.

To which I answer, “That God’s three children were cast into the

fiery furnace for declaring their defiance to the king’s law,

which was made to force men’s consciences in matters of religion;

and all the prophets and apostles suffered for opposing those laws

which were set up to force people’s consciences in matters of

worshipping God; And all the martyrs which have suffered the

flames and other tortures ever since, it has been for manifesting

their defiance to such laws as have been set up by the worldly

government to uphold false worship, or to restrain them from

worshipping God according to their consciences. Now for as much as

God has justified all those sufferers above-mentioned, for their

bold defiance of such laws as were set up by man to prevent people

serving God according to their consciences, well may we have

confidence that God will justify us for the same thing. We have

also further to plead in our own justification in this matter than

those sufferers above-mentioned had, inasmuch as our lord the king

has granted us the same liberty to meet together and worship God

according to our consciences as he has given to our persecutors:

So that in the consideration of what is here expressed, I think J.

Bolles and his brethren are highly commendable for their

faithfulness to God, in manifesting their defiance against such

laws as would restrain them from worshipping God according to

their consciences.

... In his 14th chapter, he charges the sufferers to be most

daring and malicious offenders, utterly disregarding those

Scriptures, Rom. 13, Tit. 3, I Pet. 2, etc.

In the first place I shall fully grant from those Scriptures, and

many more that might be mentioned, that the worldly government is

set up of God, and are God’s ministers to act in worldly matters

between man and man, and that the law that God hath put into their

hands is good, if they use it lawfully;... according to what is

written, I Tim. 1, 8, 9, 10. And while the worldly government act

within their commission, God is with them and has put such carnal

weapons in their hands as is sufficient to rule all carnal

persons, which are stocks, fines, prisons, whip and gallows, which

above-named weapons are sufficient to conquer and subdue all

carnal and guilty persons, so that rulers are a terror to

evil-doers.

And forasmuch as we acknowledge the worldly government to be set

up by God, we have always paid all public demands for upholding

the same; as town rates, county-rates and all other demands,

excepting such as are for the upholding hireling ministers and

false teachers which God has called us to testify against. Now

when the worldly rulers take upon themselves to make laws relating

to God’s worship, and thereby force men’s consciences, and so turn

their sword against God’s children, they then act beyond their

commission and out of their jurisdiction; and are so far from

being God’s ministers that they are fighters against God and his

church; and God is so far from making them a terror to his church

that he gives his church and people faith and boldness to

withstand them to their faces....

... Here I think he (Backus) does the government no honor by

informing the world that they have made laws to debar such as

differ from them in matters of religion the liberty of the king’s

highway to pass to their own meetings, since our lord the king

hath granted equal liberty of conscience to all dissenters to hold

their meetings and serve God according to their consciences.

FROM ANSWER TO A PAMPHLET BY

COTTON MATHER.

BY JOHN ROGERS, 2D.

... A travelling ministry are sent from town to town and from city

to city, and from country to country, and over sea, so that they

are not only taken from their own employment, but are also sent

upon charges; their state and condition is like a man that is

prest a soldier and sent away from his own living on charges and

therefore maintained at the king’s charge. And hath not this man

power to forbear work? though he tarry some days at a place, must

he therefore maintain himself by his own labor? is not this the

very state of a travelling ministry of the gospel?...

... I have thus proved by Scripture that a traveling ministry of

the Gospel hath power to forbear work. And secondly that the

churches ought to relieve them: And thirdly have shewed their

differing state from settled elders.

... In the second place, I shall now prove by Scripture that

settled elders are commanded to work with their hands and thereby

to support the weak; by being givers rather than receivers.—We

find that the apostle sends for the elders of the church.—He saith

to them, I have coveted no man’s silver or gold, or apparel; ye

yourselves know that these hands of mine have ministered unto my

necessities and to them that were with me; I have showed you all

things, how that so laboring, ye ought to support the weak, and to

remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more

blessed to give than to receive....

... And 3rdly Whereas Christ, upon sending them forth to preach

the gospel, forbids them making any provision for their journey,

requiring them to expect their meat and reward from his hands....

... From hence we may see by Scripture that Christ’s ministers,

whom he calls and sends to preach the Gospel, are so well provided

for by Him that they have no need to be hired by the children of

the world; for in so doing they would reproach their Lord and

Master and shew themselves not only faithless, but wickedly

covetous, in practising contrary to this doctrine of Christ, and

to come under the condemnation of this great sin so much condemned

in Scripture, “The priests whereof teach for hire, and the

prophets whereof divine for money, yet they will lean upon the

Lord, and say, is not the Lord among us; none evil can come upon

us. Therefore shall Zion for your sakes be plowed as a field, and

Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountains of the house as

the high places of the forest ... yea they are greedy dogs, which

can never have enough, they are shepherds that cannot understand;

they all look to their own way, every one for his gain from his

quarter.”... Christ calls them hirelings and ravening wolves.

And though the nameless authors of the said Pamphlet are pleased

to call such (as join with Christ and his shepherds, to testify

against these hirelings) by the name of wolves, yet these

hirelings, or at least their shearers, the collectors, have always

taken them for sheep, especially about shearing time.... Now we

that join with Christ and the true shepherds to testify against

these hirelings, we come under the blessing of Christ ... Blessed

are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, for so

persecuted they the prophets which were before you; yea this must

we suffer all the time that these hireling prophets are under this

curse of Christ. Wo unto you when all men shall speak well of you,

for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

... In page 8, they assert ... “That he be given to hospitality”

and say they, “how is it possible for him to be so, if you be

given to covetousness, and given to dishonesty and cheat him of

his maintainance?”

To which I answer If it be the people’s gift, its their

hospitality and not the ministers: the churl may be liberal, if

other men’s purses make him so. But the ministers of the Gospel

are given to hospitality of that which their own hands have

ministered to them, and are obedient to their Master’s words, who

hath said unto them, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

... And it is a shame for you to tell of the galling of your hands

with inferior labor for the getting of bread; it is your duty to

do so, and if the people be the cause, as you say, of your

laboring with your hands, they are worthy of praise in causing you

to do your duty, and you ought to have done it without their

causing you to do it, and therefore you proclaim your shame. For

you ought to have taken the holy prophets, and Christ and his

apostles for your example, to have labored with your hands, and

not the false prophets and false teachers, who sought to live upon

the people,... Christ shews that such stewards as those could not

dig for their living, and to beg they were ashamed....

And the true prophets, and Christ with his apostles have set us

better example.... Here you may see that Elijah was plowing ...

here Elisha went to Jordan with the sons of the prophets and cut

down wood.... Amos was a husbandman and a gatherer of wild

figs.... Christ was a carpenter.... Paul was a tayler or

tent-maker and worked at it tho’ he were a travelling minister of

the gospel,—and so did the rest of the apostles, as is to be

seen.... These examples, with that apostolical command (to the

elders of the church) Acts 20, 34, 35, ought to be attended by

Christ’s ministers....

FROM REPLY TO PETER PRATT.

JOHN ROGERS, 2D.

As it has ever been allowed that the defaming of the dead is a

mark of the most unmanly and base spirit of a coward and ought to

be abhorred by all persons who bear the image of man; then how

much more abominable is it of P. P. to sport himself with his own

lies over a man in his grave? And I think no person of common

reason will expect any apology of me on account of this my

undertaking, since my silence in this matter would have rendered

me very unmanly....

... If John Roger’s books contain “but few of his principles” then

how comes P. P. to know what his principles are, several years

after his death? except the same spirit which once deceived him in

the matter of longitude has again deceived him concerning J. R.’s

principles; and we have as much reason to question the truth of

what he tells us of J. R.’s principles (since he has no better

proof than his own bare word) as the General Assembly had to

question the truth of longitude, which soon after proved a

delusion of Satan....

Now by these foolish and vain pretended reasons, the reader may

plainly see that he only wanted an excuse to evade J. R.’s books,

that he might take his full swing to bely and abuse him at his

pleasure; because he well knew that if he had quoted his books,

they would have discovered his falsehoods....

But I should not have enlarged so much upon this head, were it not

that I am sensible that there are many thousands of grown persons

in this Colony that for want of opportunity to be informed in the

principles of other sects remain so ignorant that they know no

difference between the Church of England and the Papists, nor

between the Quakers and the Baptists, but esteem each couple to be

alike. And now is it possible that such persons should be able to

discern the ignorance of P. P.?...

... Now how marvellous is it that P. P., who knew himself to be a

man so inconstant and changeable, not only in his worldly concerns

from his very childhood, but also in matters of religion since he

has arrived to riper years, should presume to put out a book only

on his bare word, without any proof at all. Surely he might

reasonably have thought that all who knew him would expect better

proof from such an inconstant person than from any other man....

FROM ANSWER TO MR. BYLES, BY JOHN

AND JOSEPH BOLLES.

Considerable light is thrown upon the “Outbreak” of 1764-66 by a

Rogerene pamphlet (of about 1759), which appeared in several

editions, sometimes ascribed on the title-page to John Bolles,

sometimes to his son Joseph, and probably the joint work of father

and son, written out by the latter; thus having a style noticeably

different from that of John Bolles, although equally clear-cut and

forcible. John Bolles, being at the date of this work eighty-two

years of age, may be supposed to have welcomed the aid of his son

Joseph, both as collaborator and amanuensis. The following is from a

copy of this work to be found in the New London Public Library:—

An Answer to A Book entitled The Christian Sabbath, explained and

vindicated in a discourse on Exodus XX. 8.[192] Jan. 14, 1759,

upon a particular occasion, by Mather Byles, pastor of “The First

Church of Christ” (as he saith) in New London, written by Joseph

Bolles, in behalf of the rest which suffer persecution for

breaking said pretended sabbath.

Footnote 192:

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

In page 5 of Mather Byles sermon, he says: The Christian Sabbath

has of late been publickly attacked; and those who observe it have

been challenged to show any scripture warrant for the practice.

_Ans._

We have been imprisoned 23 at a time, 8 of us about 7 months, and

some of the best of our cattle and horses and other goods taken

away, and 3 of us cruelly whipped, near 20 stripes apiece, for

doing the business of our ordinary calling on the 1st day of the

week, which he calls the Sabbath, all within 9 months. And in

these persecutions we have continually desired our persecutors to

show any Scripture warrant for their practice; we have also sent

forth advertisements promising ten pounds reward to any person

that could show us one word in the Bible that forbids labor on

this pretended Sabbath; which we suppose he calls “a challenge;”

and because he cannot find a word in the Bible that forbids labor

on his pretended Sabbath he has preached a sermon instead thereof,

and though he calls it the Christian Sabbath, it is not called so

in Scripture; by which it is evident it was not the Christian

Sabbath in the apostles time; for if it had been they would have

called it so. Also his text is part of the commandment to labor

six days and rest the seventh; so that his own text that he builds

his Sabbath upon requires labor on his pretended Sabbath. For it

says six days shalt thou labor; and we know that this pretended

Sabbath is the first of the six days....

... In page 18 he says, “And lastly to assign a reason why there

is no command for this Sabbath in the New Test.;” and in his next

page he says, “The apostles left it to after discoveries,” which

will be answered in its place. But neither God nor man require us

to keep a Sabbath without a law, “For where no law is, there is no

transgression.” Rom. IV. 15. And sin is not imputed when there is

no law: And the “Confession of Faith” of this Colony requires a

command for all the worship we perform to God, in page 7, and

there is no discovery of this pretended Sabbath in the Bible; for

he says, “the apostles left it to after discoveries,” and the

first command that we have discovered for this pretended Sabbath

was more than 300 years after Christ by Constantine the emperor,

recorded in “Fox’s Acts and Monuments,” Vol. I. p. 134, in these

words: “The Sunday he commanded to be kept holy by all men and

free from all judiciary causes, from markets, marts, fairs and

other manual labors, only husbandry excepted.” Here we may observe

no husbandry labor is forbidden, in this “after discovery.”

Also king Inas, who reigned in England, in the year of our Lord

712, commanded that infants should be baptised within 30 days, and

that no man should labor on Sunday. “Fox’s Acts etc.” Vol. I, P.

1016. Observe in this after discovery all labour is forbidden; as

popish darkness increased, this Sabbath strengthened and infant

baptism was also “discovered.”

Also king Edgar, who began his reign in England in the year of our

Lord 959, he ordained that Sunday should be kept holy from

Saturday noon till Monday morning, and he ordained and decreed for

holy days and fasting days. “Fox’s Acts,” Vol. I. P. 1017. Observe

this “after discovery” being in midnight popish darkness, this

Sabbath was kept more strict and they also discovered half a day

more, and holy days and fasting days to be observed. Also king

Canutus, who began to reign in England in the year 1016, he

commanded celebration of the Sabbath from Saturday noon till

Monday morning. This king “discovered” it by the name of

“Sabbath”; but the other three “discovered” it by the name of

“Sunday.”

Also in our Colony there is an ample “after discovery” of it by

the name of Sabbath or Lord’s day, which exceeds the four other

“after discoveries;” with a famous law to torture the bodies of

them that break this pretended Sabbath, by whipping, not exceeding

20 stripes if they refuse to pay a fine; and doubtless there has

been more “after discoveries” by express commands, for this

pretended Sabbath, in Rome, France and Spain. Therefore if M. B.

will preach up this pretended Sabbath, which he says the apostles

left to “after discoveries,” he ought to have taken his text out

of the forementioned “after discoveries,” where there are express

commands to build their Sabbath upon; but, as he builds it on

God’s commandment, which commands labor on his pretended Sabbath,

it has no foundation to stand upon, and therefore stands upon

nothing. No “after discovery,” neither this pretended Sabbath,

infant baptism, nor the mass nor purgatory, ought to be built on

any text in the Bible. But whoever preaches up any of these “after

discoveries” they ought to take a text out of the law book, where

they are instituted and commanded, and not out of the Bible where

they are not “discovered.”

How fully Mr. Byles had endeavored to stir up the authorities to

take the offenders strenuously in hand will be inferred from the

following, from the same pamphlet.

... He calls us deluded, blind, obstinate, because we suffer

persecution for breaking a Sabbath which he says the apostles left

to “after discoveries.” But it is this sort of ministers that

preach to our General Court to suppress or persecute them that

walk by the apostle’s doctrine, for not observing this Sabbath

which he says the apostles left to “after discoveries.”

He further says:

“Take away the Sabbath and what will be the consequence?”

_Ans._ He speaks like the idolaters of old. Judges XVIII. 24. “Ye

have taken away my gods which I made, and the priests,—and what

have I more?” Here we may see the idolaters speak all with one

voice; their heart is after their idols and their priests more

than after God.

Next he says: “Errors in doctrine and corruption in practice would

break in upon us like a flood, immorality would triumph without

control.”

_Ans._

It is such a time now, for there are errors in doctrine, manifest

errors indeed, in this and other sermons; and corruption in

practice is already broken in upon us like a flood, and immorality

triumphs almost without control among the people, who are

encouraged to it by the example of their priests, which live

immoral lives in covetousness, pride, fulness of bread and

abundance of idleness.... Also the observers of this pretended

Sabbath do allow that there is more immorality amongst themselves

than there is among us who do not observe it. Immorality triumphs

in a high degree, even in gathering money for the priests of many

poor people to whom there is more need to give, and casting some

into prison to force them against their conscience to pay money to

maintain such priests in idleness,[193] which they know God hath

not sent to teach them.

Footnote 193:

See “Debate Between Mr. Byles and the Cong. Church.”—_People._ “We

never could conceive nor imagine how you could spend your time.

You never visited any of your parishioners, but very seldom—seldom

preached a new sermon; but old sermons over and over, etc.”

EXTRACTS FROM “LOOKING GLASS FOR

THE PRESBYTERIANS OF NEW LONDON.”

JOHN ROGERS, 3D.

To see their Worship and worshippers Weighed in the balance and

Found Wanting.—With a true account of what the people called

Rogerenes have suffered in that town, from the 10th of June 1764

to the 13th of December 1766. Who suffered for testifying, That it

was contrary to Scripture for ministers of the gospel to teach for

hire. That the first day of the week was no Sabbath by God’s

appointment. That sprinkling infants is no baptism and nothing

short of blasphemy, being contrary to the example set us by Christ

and his holy apostles. That long public prayers in synagogues is

forbidden by Christ. Also for reproving their church and minister

for their great pride, vain-glory and friendship of the world they

lived in.—With a brief discourse in favour of women’s prophesying

or teaching in the church.—Written by John Rogers, New London.

Providence N.E. Printed by the author 1767.

June 10, 1764. We went to the meeting house at New London, and

some of our people went into the house and sat down, others

tarried without and sat upon the ground some distance from the

house. And when Mather Byles their priest began to say over his

formal, synagogue prayer, forbidden by Christ, Mat. VI. 5 etc.,

some of our women began to knit, others to sew, that it might be

made manifest they had no fellowship with such unfruitful works of

darkness. But justice Coit and the congregation were much offended

by this testimony, and fell upon them in the very time of prayer

and pretended divine worship; also they fell upon all the rest of

our people that were sitting quietly in the house, making no

difference between them that transgressed the law and them that

transgressed not; for they drove us all out of the house in a most

furious manner; pushing, kicking, striking etc., so that the

meeting was broken up for some considerable time and the house in

great confusion: Moreover, they fell upon our friends that were

sitting abroad, striking and kicking both men and women, old and

young, driving all of us to prison in a furious and tumultuous

manner.

... The authority and minister and some of the people were greatly

offended at our opposing their false worship; for they carried on

their worship in such pride, and so contrary to the Holy

Scriptures that they could no ways defend it by the Scriptures and

therefore took another way to defend it never practised by Christ

or any of his followers. For justice Coit did continually fall

upon us when we came among them and drive us to prison, in an

angry and furious manner; sometimes twenty sometimes thirty in a

day, striking and kicking both men and women, pulling off women’s

caps and bonnets and tearing them to pieces with their hands,

setting an example to the rest of the people; also he made no

difference between them that spoke at the meeting house against

their worship and those that did not speak; for his constant

practice was to fall upon all our friends that came to the meeting

house and all that he could see in sight of the house and drive

them to prison, he and his company, in a most furious and

tumultuous manner, stopping their mouths when they went to speak,

choking them etc. Also he doubled our imprisonments every time we

came among them; but this method he took added no peace to them,

for some of our friends were always coming out of prison, as well

as going in, ... However, this was the method they took, and after

this manner they celebrated their Sabbaths from the 10th of June

to the 12th of August.

... February 16. Some of our friends were sitting quietly in the

meeting house, between meetings, and Col. Saltonstall[194] came in

and laid hold of an old man that had the numb palsy, aged 73

years, and with great violence hauled him out of the seat, setting

an example to others, who fell upon them and drove them out of the

house and to the court house, in a furious manner, and carried

them up through a trap door into a dark garret and locked them in,

and at night a company of their base men got together, among which

were ... This base company went into the court house and shut

themselves in and took our friends out of the attic and offered

shameful abuse to our women in the dark.... Now after this

shameful abuse to the women, they took two men and stripped off

their clothes and tied them to a post in the court house and

whipped them in a most unmerciful manner, especially one of them,

which they struck unmerciful blows with a staff and with bunches

of rods on his back, till it was like a jelly, also they rubbed

tar into their wounds and whipped upon the tar, forcing it into

their flesh, also they rubbed tar in the mouths of the men and

women when they went to speak. When these two men were first tied

to the post they sang praises to God, and in the time of their

torment they called upon God to strengthen them. After this, they

laid hold on these two men and forced them to run down near to the

town wharf and threw them into the water several times; also they

took their hats and threw water on them for some considerable

time. Moreover, they threw the women into the water. And after

this the sheriff’s eldest son and another man with him took a poor

weakly woman, forty odd years of age, and forced her to run

through the streets till she dropped down, and then they left

her....

Footnote 194:

Gurdon, son of Governor Saltonstall.

Now the next first day of the week, after Col. Saltonstall shut

our friends up in the court house and set his son Dudley and

others to abuse us, it being the 23d of February, we were coming

to the meeting house again, but as soon as we appeared in sight,

Col. Saltonstall run out and met us, and a great company with him,

and fell upon us in a very angry manner, before we had spoke one

word, to drive us to the court house, as he did the week before,

when our friends were sitting quietly in the house between

meetings. But as soon as they fell on us, we spoke and made a

great noise, and refused to go with them, telling them we chose to

be killed publickly before the people, rather than to be murdered

privately in the court house.

Now the tumult grew very great, so that the meeting was broken up

for some considerable time, and they dragged both men and women on

the ground to the court house;[195] some by their hands, some by

their legs, and some by the hair of their heads, striking them

with their fists, kicking them, striking and punching them with

staffs and tearing the clothes from their backs, and they dragged

them into the court house and hauled both men and women up two

pair of stairs, and hauled them up through a trap door into that

dark loft that they had shut our friends up in the week before,

and they locked them in. In this tumult an aged woman was so

overcome that she fainted away and they left her lying on the

ground. Now there were present in this riot justice ——, justice

——, justice ——, the high-sheriff and Col. ——, besides constables

and grandjurymen: There was also a deacon among them, which makes

us write as follows.

Footnote 195:

See likeness to similar scene in Governor Saltonstall’s time,

1721 (Part II, Chapter X).

The deacon and the justices

Were busy in this fray,

Church members and grandjurymen

Forgot their Sabbath day.

After the tumult was over, these church members remembered their

Sabbath, and returned to their pretended worship again: But as

soon as that was over, the authority consulted together at the

meeting house, and sent the high-sheriff, who came with a company

of men and took down ten women out of that dark loft that the

authority had shut them up in (two of these women had young

children with them and another was big with child)[196] and

committed them to prison, leaving near twenty small children

motherless at their homes. Now as the high-sheriff was going from

the meeting house, to commit these women to prison, some of the

people of the town asked him what they were going to do with our

friends; the sheriff answered that the women were to be committed

to prison, but he said the men were to be delivered up to Satan to

be buffetted. So the authority kept the men locked up in that dark

garret till night, and then they were delivered up to the

authority’s children and a rude company of young men, who came and

unlocked the trap door and abused our friends in the manner

following: They took down one man first out of this dark loft and

brought him down into the lower room of the court-house, and tied

his hands round a post, also they tied another line to his hands

and hoisted him up by a tackle, then they brought his knees round

the post and tied them with a line, and stripped his clothes up

over his head and tied them also; then they whipped him in a very

barbarous manner by the light of a candle. And when they had done

torturing him, they let him down and shut him up in one of the

court house chambers. They then brought down another out of the

garret, and tortured him after the same manner as they did the

first, and then shut him up also, pretending they would whip them

all over again, except they would recant and promise not to come

among them any more. There were twelve whippers that took turns at

the whip, and commonly three or four to whip one man, one after

another. They pretended to give those men thirty nine stripes

each, but they used several sorts of whips, especially one

unmerciful instrument made of cow-hide, also they whipped them

with large rods tied together, some of which had ten in a bunch,

so that they far exceeded thirty nine stripes, for they struck

each person thirty nine times with that cruel instrument, except

one man, which after they had struck him thirty unmerciful blows,

one of the spectators ran and untied him, telling the whippers he

was an old man and they ought to use some discretion towards him.

Nine men were thus used this night, all heads of families, some of

which were elderly men that had great families of children.

Footnote 196:

Delight Rogers (wife of John Rogers, 3d) was one of the women

imprisoned. Her daughter Anna (mother of John R. Bolles) was

born very soon after her release. The near-sightedness of this

daughter was attributed to the fact that her mother wept so much

during her imprisonment. Delight Rogers sat with the rest in the

meeting-house; she did not take any work there. Mr. John R.

Bolles in “Reminiscences of his Life,” published in a New London

paper, said that the venerable Dr. Nathaniel Petting, who knew

Delight Rogers, used to say to him: “If there ever was a good

woman, your grandmother Lighty was one.”

This whipping was executed in a very barbarous manner, for the

rods were trimmed, and long sharp fangs left on them, to tear the

flesh of the sufferers, also these men that whipped our friends

struck them in such a violent manner with these heavy bunches of

rods that they beat and bruised their flesh till it was like

jelly. Moreover some of their wrists were so cut and their sinews

so much hurt with the line they hung by, that several of their

hands were numb for more than two months after. Also the two men

that had been so unmercifully whipped by this company in the court

house the week before, and otherwise abused, were of these men

that suffered that night: And they struck one of these men, he

that had been the most abused the week before, forty three cruel

blows on his old sores, and ten or twelve of these blows were

after he had swooned away. Our persecutors cut these rods upon

their Sabbath, and fitted them at the court house, and Colonel

Saltonstall was at the court house among them when they were

preparing the rods.... When their persecutors heard them praying

and calling on Christ for strength, they would threaten them, and

whip them with all their might, endeavoring to make them promise

to renounce their testimony against their worship, but were not

able to make one of them renounce their testimony, or make any

promise at all. But the sufferers told them to this effect, that

what they did against their worship was for no other end but to

please God and keep a good conscience, and that if they should

promise to renounce their testimony God would renounce their souls

forever. Also when some of the men that had suffered this cruel

whipping were shut up in the court house chamber, they prayed

earnestly to God to strengthen their brethren that were to suffer,

also they prayed for their persecutors, for God gave them more

than a common love to those that were tormenting them.

So after these nine men had suffered, they were set at liberty.

Their persecutors threatened them to double their whipping every

time they came to the meeting house among them. And no doubt they

would have gone further, had not God prevented them by making a

division among the people; the neighboring towns crying out

against such barbarous and unlawful behavior; also it was a common

saying among the people that they were sorry their rulers had

resigned up their authority to a company of boys and set them to

defend their worship....

The above is but a small part of such blood-curdling accounts,

filling a good-sized pamphlet. Portions will be found in the

“History of New London,” not quoted here. Near the end is something

less thrilling.

Sept. 14, 1766. Some of our people went and sat down some distance

from the priest’s house, and when he came out to go to meeting,

they walked with him and endeavored to have some friendly

discourse with him concerning the things of God; But the priest

would not talk with them about the things of God. However, they

walked with him and talked to him, but before they came to the

meeting house, justice Coit began to kick them in a furious

manner, especially the women. Also one of the townsmen fell upon

them, punching both men and women with a staff in a cruel manner,

so they were driven by some of the people to the upper end of the

town.

* * * * *

The next first day of the week, being the 21st of Sept., as some

of us were setting by the side of a house, between meetings, about

four or five rods from the priest’s house, saying nothing to any

person, the high-sheriff came, with some assistants and took us

and sent for justice Coit, who came and committed eight men of us

to prison. And on the 26th day of the same month, justice Coit

came to the prison, and we were taken out and brought before him,

and he charged us with disturbing the minister’s peace. We told

him we had no thought of doing the minister any hurt. Justice Coit

answered, that he did not suppose that we intended to strike him

or wrestle with him, nor did he suppose we intended to hurt a hair

of his head, but he supposed that we intended, when the minister

came out, to go along by his side and talk with him. So when

justice Coit had confessed that he did not suppose we intended to

hurt a hair of the priest’s head, he fined us five shillings each,

and required bonds of good behavior towards all his majesty’s

subjects; but especially towards the priest. But we refused to

give such bonds, looking upon the judgment to be very absurd, and

that justice Coit’s supposing that we intended to talk with the

priest was not breach of the peace in us, so he committed seven of

us to prison again, all heads of families, one of which men was in

his 75th year. Four of these men were kept in prison till the 13th

of December following, and two were set at liberty about the 28th

of November, and one within a few days after we were committed to

prison.

Now after these men were committed to prison, our friends that

were at liberty thought it necessary that some of our people

should go on the first days of the week and set in the priest’s

sight and not fear them that persecute the body. But when the

priest saw them sitting in sight, if it were but a few women, he

would not come out of his house to go to meeting.... Also this

behavior of the priest occasioned much trouble to his poor flock,

for sometimes the bell would ring and the people sit waiting for

their priest till it was time for meeting to be half done: And

then justice Coit, or some of the rest of his sheep, were obliged

to come and move the women out of the priest’s sight, and guard

their shepherd to the meeting house, lest these women should speak

to him of the things of God.

It was almost every day of the first days of the week for the

whole time of this imprisonment, which was near three months, that

this shepherd was kept in his house by the sight of our friends,

and sometimes only at the sight of a few women, and he never

ventured to come out till some of his sheep came and drove the

women away. But justice Coit committed no more of our friends to

prison under bonds of good behavior because he supposed they

intended to talk with the priest, after these men above mentioned.

But the 23rd of November, one of our men told the priest, after he

was come out of the meeting house, that he came to put him in mind

how they kept God’s children in prison, and that their worship was

upheld by cruelty. The priest answered to this effect, that they

could uphold it in no other way. Then the man replied it must

certainly be of the devil, if there was no other way to uphold it

but by cruelty. But the sheriff struck him twice on the head, and

punched him with his staff to prevent his speaking with the

priest. And he and three women were committed to prison, but at

night they were set at liberty.... God said, Jer. 1, 7,—“Thou

shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command

thee thou shalt speak.” Also the apostle Paul exhorteth us to be

followers of him as he was of Christ, I Cor. XI. 1. And Paul spent

much time in going from place to place, disputing in the

synagogues on the Sabbath days, as appears in the Acts of the

Apostles. And no doubt they built their synagogues, and thought,

as our neighbors do, that they had a natural right to worship in

them and that the apostle had no right to oppose them in their

worship, for they were as much offended at the apostle as our

neighbors are at us, for they called him a pestilent fellow, and

said he was a mover of sedition throughout the world, Acts XXIV.

5. Also speaking of Paul and Silas they said, Acts XVII, “These

that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also.”

EXTRACTS FROM “A DEBATE BETWEEN

REV. MR. BYLES AND THE CHURCH.”

_Minister._

I have no particular objection to this church; but believe it to be

a true church of our Lord etc.—but it is this mysterious call of

Providence etc.—the churches of this and old England are equal to

me. I am called from one to another where I can be of more

usefulness, which is my duty.... And I believe you had better

dismiss me, as you may get one that will do much better. You want

one that will visit his parishioners—preach a lecture once in a

while.... I was not made for a country minister.... I am weak and

infirm[197] ... to come up this tedious hill all weathers—come in

all out of breath ... obliged to preach till all in a sweat ... then

go out in the cold, on this bleak place ... run the risk of my

health etc.... And then to be treated as I have been by the Quakers

... disturbed upon the holy Sabbath. If I have not the Sabbath, what

have I? tis the sweetest enjoyment of my whole life!—Insulted by

them almost continually, surrounding my house. Many a time has the

bell tolled for hours together, and at last one single man

condescends to come down and drive them off. I would not live such a

life over again for no consideration.... I see no prospect of

amendment ... our laws are not put in full execution. (And then he

went on to show wherein the civil authority, in his opinion, were

deficient in duty with regard to the Quakers etc.[198])—My salary is

not sufficient[199] etc.... My friends are in Boston. Etc.

Footnote 197:

Mr. Byles was at this time thirty years of age.

Footnote 198:

Unfortunately we have merely this in parenthesis concerning the

stand taken by Mr. Byles in regard to the Rogerenes.

Footnote 199:

It will be remembered that Mr. Byle’s salary was a liberal one,

and his family at this date could not have been large.

_People._ These objections are nothing to the purpose, and what you

say about the Quakers is a mere cobweb. As to the call of

Providence, it plainly appears to be money.... Conscience! with what

conscience can you leave this church of Christ? (They then set forth

the obligations he was under to walk with this church; the

connection between them was of a sacred nature etc.)

_Minister._ There are ministers enough to be had.

_People._ Yes, such as you are—We never could conceive nor imagine

how you could spend your time before now, for you never visited any

of your parishioners, but very seldom—seldom preached a new sermon;

but old sermons over and over, again and again; and behold all this

time you have been studying controversies, about modes and forms,

rites and ceremonies! Is it for this we have been paying you this

three years past, when you should have been about your ministry?...

In regard to the Quakers insulting you etc. Is any man wholly free

from persecution? If that is all you have, you ought to be very

thankful that you have no more than a few poor old women sitting

round your gate.

EXTRACTS FROM “THE BATTLE AXE,”

BY TIMOTHY WATROUS, SR., AND TIMOTHY, JR.

Satan, to all classes of the Ecclesiastical system that profess

Christ’s name and prove traitors to his service.

I now address you as my sworn subjects, under full power of my

authority; feeling much gratified to see my kingdom established on

the ruins of God’s creation. Though I have been wounded by Christ,

the invader of my possessions, yet I hold before you the greatness

of my power and the glory of my kingdom. I am the great and high

prince and god of this world.... I am your god, and I warn you of my

great enemy Christ; that you be not found obedient to any of the

requirements of his contracted plan. My ways are broad and easy. I

am high in heart and teach the same to you. That in all nations you

may set my worship in high places, that it may be adorned with all

the splendid glory which belongs to the prince that offered Christ

all the glory of this world. That your places of worship may appear

beautiful to men. And let my servants, your ministers, be men of the

best gifts and talents; for so were your fathers the false prophets.

And be not like Christ’s apostles, who were ignorant, unlearned men.

Even his great apostle, Paul, (they said) in bodily presence was

weak and his speech contemptible. But let it not be so with you....

For it is my will that you should have the praise of men; and

receive from them titles of honor. For the ways of Christ, our great

enemy, are contrary to all men, and even to nature itself, as you

may see throughout all his precepts; for example I Cor. I, 26, 27,

28. “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men

after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God

hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the

things that are mighty; and base things of the world and things

which are despised hath God chosen.”

This is no description of an accomplished member of society.

Faithful subjects, when you execute the priest’s office in my

service, put on a dress suitable to your ministration; and let your

bodily presence be amiable and your speech affable, and your

countenance grave and solemn. Salute the people with a comely

behavior, that you may glory in your own presence. For verily I say

unto you, except your outward appearance of righteousness shall

exceed that of Christ’s ministers, you shall in no case deserve the

world....

Agreeably to my counsel, in all cases resent an insult from your

fellows and go forth to war with them; embody yourselves and march

to the field of battle, with religion at your right; and appoint one

of my servants, your ministers, a chaplain to pray for your success.

And there encamp, one against the other; and let my servants, your

priests, on both sides, put up a prayer to the God of heaven that

you may gain the victory over each other; cherishing the belief that

all that die gloriously in battle go immediately to heaven. And when

you are coming together to do the work of human butchery, if a sense

of the horrid piece of work which you are about to perform shall

fill your soldiery with terror, benumb their senses with

intoxicating liquor; and put on confusion and distraction, under the

name of courage and valor; and fear not, for I will be with you and

fill your hearts with such vengeance, through the immediate

influence of my spirit, that you shall be able to perform all my

will and pleasure. And, when you have sufficiently soaked the ground

with the blood of your fellow men, and humbled their hearts and have

gotten your wills upon them; then return and let my servant, your

minister, lift up his voice before you, unto the God of heaven, with

praise and thanks for the victory; that you have been able to do

such deeds as to bereave parents of their sons, wives of their

husbands and children of their fathers.... And then return home full

of the glory of your own shame, and tell your rulers you have saved

their pride, gratified their ambition and saved a little of the

trash of this world; for which you have taken the lives of your

fellow creatures, each one of whom is worth more than all the

treasures of India. For all such things belong to the religion that

I delight in.

Ye fathers, I exhort that you exercise yourselves in laying up

treasure on earth. And ye, young men, that you likewise embrace

every opportunity to get riches, which are an honor to youth; that

in the performance thereof your hearts may be raised higher in

pride.

And ye, ministers of the civil law, I counsel that you swerve not

from mutual confederacy with the ecclesiastical system. That, for

the sake of your honor, you strictly attend to your oaths; and put

in motion all laws and modes of punishments which may tend to compel

all kinds of people to submit to our precepts, which are in

opposition to the rules of Christ.

A SERMON TO THE PRIESTS.

It is well known that the Christian religion has been in the world

18 centuries, since she first visited the earth, and also that 300

yrs. of the first part of the time, altho’ she stood in opposition

to the powers of this world, and under cruel persecutions, yet she

mightily grew and flourished until about the 4th century, at which

time, a general revolution took place through the governing parts of

the earth and she was delivered from her persecution, being a great

church and standing on her own foundation. And from that day down to

this the priesthood of this religion (falsely so called) has been

preaching to us a sinful world, though broken in sect, but under one

lineage of ordination. Yet they have not brought the world, nor the

church to a state of perfection; but much to the contrary. For when

they first took the Christian church by the hand to lead her through

the ensuing ages of the world, she then stood on her own feet,

enjoying a well-united system of her own. And what is she now?...

she is now broken all to pieces and become a house divided against

herself. And this unparalleled circumstance has rendered it

necessary that the sinful world unto whom you, the said priests,

have been preaching, should have somewhat to preach unto you....

THE SUBSCRIBERS PETITION TO HIS COUNTRYMEN

FOR HIS RIGHTS AND

PRIVILEGES.

Whereas I am once more called to suffer for conscience’s sake, in

defense of the gospel of Christ; on the account of my son, who is

under age, in that it is against my conscience to send him into the

train-band. For which cause, I have sustained the loss of my only

cow that gave milk for my family; through the hands of William

Stewart, who came and took her from me and the same day sold her at

the post. Which circumstance, together with the infirmity of old

age, has prevented my making my usual defence at such occasion. I

have therefore thought proper and now do (for myself and in behalf

of all my brethren that shall stand manfully with me in defense of

the gospel of Christ) publish the following as a petition to my

countrymen for my rights and privileges; and especially to those

that have or shall have any hand in causing me to suffer.

_Fellow Countrymen_:

You esteem it a great blessing of heaven that you live in a

country of light, where your rights and privileges are not invaded

by a tyrannical Government. And for this great blessing of heaven do

you not feel yourselves under obligation of obedience to heaven’s

laws; to do unto all men as you would that men should do unto you?

Or which of you on whom our Lord hath bestowed ten thousand talents

should find his fellow servant that owed him fifty pence and take

him by the throat, saying, “Pay that thou owest me,” and, on

refusal, command his wife and children to be sold and payment to be

made?

Fellow Countrymen, this case between you and me I shall now lay open

before your eyes, seeing it is pending before the judgment seat of

the same Lord. Our Lord and Master hath commanded us not to hate our

enemies, like them of old times under the law of Moses. But hath,

under the dear gospel dispensation, commanded us, saying: “I say

unto you love your enemies, do good to them that hate you and pray

for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, and if any man

shall sue you at the law and take away your coat, forbid him not to

take your cloak also.” “If thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he

thirst, give him drink.” And again: “I say unto you that ye resist

not evil.”

For these, and many other like commands of our Saviour, Christ, I

have refused to bear arms against any man in defense of my rights

and privileges of this world. For which cause, you have now taken me

by the throat, saying: “Go break the laws of your Lord and Master.”

And because I have refused to obey man rather than God, you have

taken away the principal part of the support of my family and

commanded it to be sold at the post.

And thus you, my fellow-servants (under equal obligation of

obedience to the same laws of our Master) have invaded my rights and

privileges and robbed me of my living, for no other reason but

because I will not bear the sword to defend it. And if a servant

shall be thought worthy of punishment for transgressing his master’s

laws, of how much punishment shall he be thought worthy that shall

smite his fellow servant, because he will not partake with him in

his transgression? But I wist that through ignorance you have done

it, as have also your rulers; and for this cause do I hold the case

before you, that you may not stand in your own light, to stretch out

against me the sword of persecution; but agree with your adversary

whilst you are in the way with him. But if you shall refuse to hear

this my righteous cause and shall pursue your fellow servant that

owes you nothing, and who wishes you no evil, neither would hurt one

hair of your head, and although you take away his goods, yet he asks

them not again; but commits his cause to Him that shall judge

righteously; I say if you shall follow hard after him, as the

Egyptians did after Israel, God shall trouble your host and take off

your chariot wheels, so that you shall drive them heavily. For I

know, by experience, that no device shall stand against the counsel

of God; for I am not a stranger in this warfare, neither is it only

the loss of goods that I have suffered heretofore; but extreme

torments of body, while my life lay at stake under the threat of my

persecutors, and yet God, through his mighty power, has never

suffered me to flee before my enemies, but has brought me to the 83d

year of my age, though all my persecutors have been dead these many

years.

ALEXANDER ROGERS.

_January 7th, 1810. Waterford, New London County._

ROGERENE WRITINGS.

The following works of John Rogers, Sr., are most of them still

extant, although copies are very rare and command high prices. The

locality of copies known to the author of this history will be found

indicated:—

1. “_An Epistle to the Church Called Quakers._ New York. Printed

by William Bradford, 1705.”

2. “_An Epistle to the Seventh Day Baptists_,”—date unknown.

3. “_Treatise on Divorce._”

Copy of each of the above owned by H. Eugene Bolles of Boston.

4. “_An Epistle Sent from God to the World, Containing the Best

News that ever the World Heard. Transcribed by John Rogers, a

Servant of Jesus Christ._” The first edition must have been

printed in the author’s lifetime. The edition from which this

title was obtained was “_printed in New York for Elisha Stanbury,

1757_. 8vo. pp. 25.” We know not if this work is still extant.

5. “_John Rogers, a Servant of Jesus Christ, to any of the Flock

scattered Throughout New England._”

We know not at what date in the author’s lifetime above work was

published. The edition noted by Sabin (Dictionary of Books

relating to America) was “_Printed by James Franklin, at the

Printing Office under the Town School, 1754. 12 mo. pp. 79_.” A

copy of this work is to be found in Yale College Library, “_3rd

edition, Newport, 1754_.” A copy of same, owned by H. Eugene

Bolles of Boston, was published in Norwich, Conn., 1776, and was

the 4th edition.

6. “_A Midnight Cry from the Temple of God to the Ten Virgins_,”

printed by William Bradford, supposedly in 1705 and probably at

New York. A copy of this work is in Yale College Library. A copy

is also owned by H. Eugene Bolles,—title-page lacking.

7. “_Concerning the Two Ministrations, by John Rogers, a Servant

of Jesus Christ._” A copy owned by H. Eugene Bolles,—title-page

and date lacking.

8. “_Description of the True Shepherd, As Also Concerning Baptism

and the Lord’s Supper, Norwich, 1776, 4th Edition._” A copy owned

by H. Eugene Bolles.

9. “_Concerning the Ministration of the Law, and the Gospel,

Concerning Swearing and Concerning God’s Visitation by Sickness._”

Copy owned by H. Eugene Bolles,—date lacking.

10. “_Answer to A Book, by Benj. Wadsworth (the latter entitled

‘The Lord’s Day Proved to be the Christian Sabbath’). Printed for

the author, Boston, 1721._”

11. “_The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave

unto Him to show unto his servants things which were to come to

pass; and Jesus Christ sent and signified it by his angels to his

servant John, and now by revelation hath opened the mystery

contained in said book unto his servant John Rogers, who hath

explained the same, for the edification and comfort of his Church

and People, after a long and dark night of apostacy. The

explanation being made so plain that the eye of every spiritual

reader may see how exactly things have come to pass, as were

foretold by the prophesy of this book, and may see by it all

things that are yet to come, not only to the end of this world,

but to the finishing of the world to come._” First printed in

Boston, 1720. “_Second New London edition, printed by Samuel

Green, for Henry Watrous and Alexander Rogers, 1817. 12 mo. pp.

248._”

The title of this work is liable to give the impression that the

author affects to himself explain the mystery of Revelation; but a

perusal of the book shows that not the slightest such attempt is

made. The entire work consists in expounding scripture by

scripture in the most legitimate and conscientious manner,

displaying not only a profound knowledge of the Old and New

Testaments, but extreme caution not to advance the slightest

personal explanation, supposition or theory. Like every other work

of this author, it gives proof of strong, clear and finely

balanced logical powers, combined with a plain and concise mode of

expression.

The title of the following is from Sabin. We know of no copy

extant:—

12. “_An Impartial Relation of an Open and Publick Dispute Agreed

Between Gurdon Saltonstall, Minister of the Town of New London,

and John Rogers of the Same Place. With the Circumstances leading

thereto, and the Consequences thereof. As also a relation of the

said Gurton Saltonstall’s securing a Judgment of Court of Six

Hundred Pounds and Cost of Court against said John Rogers, for

saying the said Saltonstall went to wave, shun or shift the said

Dispute agreed upon. The Truth of which waving, shunning or

shifting is here also evidently demonstrated. By John Rogers.

Printed for the Author in the year 1701. sm. 4to. pp. (6) 15._”

Probably printed at New York by William Bradford, or at

Philadelphia by Reynier Jansen. Title from Hildeburn’s Issues of

the Press in Pennsylvania. (Sabin.)

13. “_Treatise on Divorce._” Probably written about 1700. A copy

owned by H. Eugene Bolles.

Works of John Rogers, 2d:—

1. That the “_Book_” which John Rogers, 2d, was accused by the

General Court of publishing and selling “up and down the Colony,”

while his father was in prison, was written by himself, not by his

father, is probable. Its title or its contents are alike unknown

to us, not having as yet been discovered in any bibliographic

work, by which we judge that no copy or title is extant.

2. In Part I., Chapter I., has been seen the account of the

scourging inflicted upon John Rogers, 2d, John Bolles, and their

companions on occasion of the journey to the meeting at Lebanon in

1725; also the Proclamation which this punishment called forth

from Deputy Governor Jenks of Rhode Island. Mr. J. Backus, the

justice who was instrumental in securing the enactment of this

cruelty, made a reply to Governor Jenks in a pamphlet of

thirty-two pages, in which, in a lame and prevaricating manner, he

endeavored to justify this outrage. Upon this, John Rogers, 2d,

issued a pamphlet, bound with the pamphlet of J. Backus, stating

the exact circumstances of the case as opposed to the incorrect

statements of the justice, and entitled “_A Reply to J. Backus,

Esq. (as he calls himself), 1726_.” A copy of a book containing

the Reply of J. Backus to Governor Jenks and the Reply of J.

Bolles to this Reply of J. Backus is owned by H. Eugene Bolles.

3. “_Answer To A Book lately written by Peter Pratt, entitled ‘The

Prey taken from the Strong,’ Wherein by Mocks and Scoffs, together

with a great number of positive Falsehoods, the Author has greatly

abused John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, since his death.

By John Rogers. Printed in New York for the Author, 1726, and sold

at his house in New London. 8 vo. pp. (2) XXII._” Probably printed

by William Bradford. A copy owned by Connecticut Historical

Society in their Library at Hartford. A copy also owned by H.

Eugene Bolles.

4. “_An Answer to a Pamphlet (by Cotton Mather) entitled ‘A

Monitory Letter about the Maintenance of An Able and Faithful

Ministry.’ By John Rogers. New York. 1726._” (Printed by William

Bradford, supposedly). A copy of this book is in Yale College

Library.

Works by John Bolles still extant:—

A copy of each of the following books, with exception of the

eighth, is owned by H. Eugene Bolles of Boston.

1. “_Application to the General Court holden in New Haven—1728._”

A portion of the ending sentence in above pamphlet is as follows:—

“But we, on our parts, have had the witness of a good conscience

towards God in all our sufferings and loss of all these things”

(having recounted their persecutions) “and do make it our care to

live inoffensively towards all men, except in the case of Daniel,

Chap. 6, verse 5.”

2. “_Good News from a Far Country._” This is an argument to prove

that the Civil Government “have no authority from God to judge in

cases of Conscience.”

3. “_Answer to An Election Sermon preached by Nathaniel Eels._”

The last two published in one volume at Newport, 1749.

4. “_To Worship God in Spirit and In Truth._”

An Answer to same was published by Jacob Johnson (pastor of a

church in Groton, Conn.).

5. “_Reply to Jacob Johnson, by John Bolles._”

All three in Boston Library, bound together.

6. “_A Message to the General Court in Boston, 1754._”

Copy in Boston Library.

7. A tract entitled, “_True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to

no Flesh_.”

8. “_Persecutions in Boston and Connecticut Governments. Taken out

of Authors. Whereby it may be seen that a people may be deceived

under the highest conceit of religion, and thinking they are

worshipping God, when indeed they are worshipping the dragon and

persecuting the children of God that worship Him in spirit and in

truth. By John Bolles, New London. Printed for the author, 1758._”

A copy of this tract is owned by Mrs. Reed Watson of East Windsor,

Conn.

9. “_Answer to A Book entitled ‘The Christian Sabbath,’ by Mather

Byles, 1759._”

A copy of above work in Boston Library names John Bolles as

author. A copy of the same work in the New London Library is (in

its Introduction) distinctly ascribed to Joseph Bolles, son of

John Bolles. It was probably a joint work of father and son.

“_Bolles (J.) and Waterhouse (John) Concerning the Christian

Sabbath, also some Remarks upon a book written by Ebenezer

Frothingham. Printed for Joseph Bolles, 1757._” Title from Brinley

Catalogue. Know not if extant.

“_A Looking Glass for the Presbyterians of New London._” _By John

Rogers, 3d. Providence, 1767. 8vo._ See quotations in Appendix.

The style of this work is bright, vigorous and concise, comparing

well with the other Rogerene writings, not one of which is of an

inferior order.

INDEX.

The numbers against the names refer to the pages where the names

occur. A name has but a single reference to the page on which it

appears, though it may be repeated there; care should therefore be

taken to look for such repetition.

Adams, Eliphalet, 30, 48, 49, 214, 229, 247, 248, 257, 276, 283,

328

Allyn, Lyman, 213

Angell, George T., 317

Ashurst, Henry (Sir), 30

Backus, Joseph, 34, 58, 251, 260, 261, 329, 330, 363, 390, 391

Bancroft, George B., 106

Barber (Hist. Collections), 19, 63, 330, 339

Beckwith, Elizabeth, 169, 205, 206

Matthew, 169, 205, 206, 210

Beebe, Elizabeth, 157, 167, 170-172, 212, 216, 221, 230

Samuel, 25, 82, 157, 158, 162, 163, 167, 170, 172, 188, 205, 212,

216, 218, 220-224, 229, 230, 232

Beecher, Lyman, 96

Benedict (Hist. of the Baptists), 15

Benham, Henry, 281

Ida W., 314

Bickly, ——, 78

Bishop, Charles, 103

George, 86

Gilbert, 103

Henry, 103

John, 103

Blake (History N. L. first church), 162, 268, 331, 332, 340

Blinman, Rev. Mr., 125

Bolles, Anna, 376

Augustus, 94

David, 90, 92-94, 105

Delight R., 113

Ebenezer, 104, 274, 282, 288

Edwin C., 108

Enoch, 333

Frank, 106

Frederick D., 94-97, 111, 112

H. Eugene, 107, 109, 388-391

James A., 108

John, 32, 34, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91-93, 104, 105, 107-112, 114, 116,

213-215, 233, 234, 236, 237, 242, 244-248, 250, 252-255, 258,

259, 262, 263, 265, 267, 269, 270, 272, 274-277, 281-283, 285,

286, 289, 290, 296, 299-301, 301, 305, 306, 309, 314, 324,

325, 332, 337, 363, 369, 390-392

John A., 94, 105, 335-337

John R., 11, 13-17, 116, 247, 288 321, 376

John W., 111

Joseph, 34, 104, 213, 255, 258, 259, 267, 285, 287, 293, 296,

297, 308, 332, 333, 335, 337, 338, 369, 392

Joshua, 105, 110-112, 114, 247

Joshua A., 112

Lucius, 92, 108

Matthew, 92, 105, #111

Patience, 104

Sarah, 242, 244-246, 248-250, 255, 257, 267

Stephen, 114

Susannah, 94

Thomas, 88, 93, 213

William, 104, 105, 107, 111, 306

William P. (Dr.), 108

Zipporah, 88

Bowles, Samuel, 93, 96

Bownas, Samuel, 15, 181, 206-210, 309, 320, 362

Bradford, William, 209, 388, 390, 391

Bradstreet, Simon, 136, 137, 147, 148, 164

Branch, Anna H., 112

Mary L. B., 18, 112, 115

Brandagee, Augustus, 103, 107

Frank, 107

John, 108

Britton, Nathaniel, 111

Bruen, Obadiah, 124, 130

Burdick, Naomi, 148

Burnham (widow), 91

Burroughs (Rev.), 25

Bushnell (Rev.), 93

Byles, Mather (Rev.), 16, 48, 49, 86, 284-286, 289, 291-297, 308,

369, 371-373, 381, 392

Calvert [J. C.], 213

Camp, Elizabeth, 207

William, 207

Case and Banks, 61-63

Caulkins, Frances M. (Historian), 11, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27,

31, 40, 41, 56, 72, 82, 84, 88, 100, 102, 109, 162, 164, 165,

168, 175, 186, 196, 202, 204, 205, 215, 220, 232, 269, 271, 295,

325, 330, 338

Pamela, 102

Chamberlain, Peter, 150

Chapman, Nathan, 313

Samuel, 313, 334

Chappell, Alfred, 104

Frank, 103

Chew family, 102

Christophers, Christopher, 177, 223, 293

John, 177, 183

Richard, 245

Clarke, John, 22

Coit, Horace, 102

Coit (Justice), 373, 374, 378, 379

Cole, Sarah 68, 241

Comstock Stephen, 281

Congdon, Joseph B., 103

Cotton, John, 20

Coulter, John M., 110

Crandall, Amos, 107

John, 131, 327

Crouch, John, 334

Julia, 314

William, 300

Crump Richard, 107

William C., 102

Culver, Esther, 247, 248, 254, 299

John, 242, 247-249, 254, 263-265, 270, 272, 273, 299

Sarah, 34, 242, 248, 250

Cushman, Clarissa, 333

Darrow, Zadoc, 107

Davenport John, 86

Davis, Andrew, 34, 247, 248, 267, 275, 302

Denison, George, 75

Deshon, ——, 108

Henry, 103

John, 103

Dodge, Augustus C., 103

Henry, 103

Israel, 103

Nehemiah, 102, 103

Donham, ——, 159

Douglass, Ann, 253

Robert, 253

Dow, Lorenzo, 29

Edgecomb, John, 213

Edmundson, Edmund, 209 (see note, p. 396).

William, 15, 134, 135

Eels, Nathaniel, 392

Ely, William, 28

Field, Thomas P., 81-83, 97, 100, 331, 336, 337

Fitch, Thomas, 103

Fitzgerald, ——, 281

Fox, Bathsheba, 173, 185, 187, 194, 200, 230, 231

Samuel, 173, 179, 194, 231, 232, 241

Franklin, James, 388

Frink [Adam], 110

Frothingham, Ebenezer, 392

Gallup, John, 121

Gardner, Stephen, 277

Garrison, William L., 317

Garritt, Joshua, 110

Joshua B., 110

Gates, Josiah, 257, 258, 265

Gibson, ——, 149, 153

William, 154

Gilbert, Samuel, 64

Goddard, Calvin, 94

Green and Greene

Benjamin, 262, 277

Delight, 277

Samuel, 389

William, 277

Griswold, Elizabeth, 54, 55, 141, 142, 145, 146, 156, 160, 164,

169, 198, 206, 209, 216, 264, 266, 340

Griswold, Matthew, 54, 55, 62, 72, 98, 123-129, 132, 133, 144-146,

156, 160, 164, 167, 169, 205, 340

Hager, ——, 219, 220

Hall, Francis, 122

Hamilton, Jonas, 265

Hancox, Thomas, 64, 190

Harris, J. N., 102

Joseph, 277

Mary, 104

Peter, 272

Hastings, H. L., 317

John, 91

Haven, Henry P., 102

Urbane (Mrs.), 111

Hempstead, Joshua (Diary), 15, 122, 196, 217, 232, 239, 241, 243,

247, 255, 256, 269, 271, 272, 274-276, 280, 283, 322, 332, 335

Mary, 253

Robert, 170, 253

Hiscox, Thomas, 127, 132, 139, 140, 146, 147, 149

Hollister (Hist. of Conn.), 22

Horton, Joseph, 142

Howard, Roland B., 317

Howe, Julia Ward, 316, 317

Hubbard Clarke, 132

Samuel, 15, 127, 131, 132, 139, 146-149, 154, 159, 160

Hunter (Governor), 78

Hutchinson family, 317

Jackson, Joan, 171, 172, 220-225, 230

John, 32, 220, 223, 225

Jansen, Reynier, 390

Japhet (Indian), 130, 132, 139

Jenks, Joseph, 35, 36, 390, 391

Johnson, Charles, 113

Jacob, 392

Jones, Mary, 241

Jones, Robert, 68, 241

Keeney, John, 230, 232

Laborell, ——, 77

Lamb, ——, 273

Law, Jonathan, 77

Richard, 102

Lay, Edward, 121

Lee, Jason, 107

Leete (Governor), 150, 151

Lewis, Martha, 335

Lillie, Marion H., 112

Livermore, Mary A., 317

Livingston, John, 224, 232

Lockwood, Belva, 317

Loomis, Elias, 102

F. B., 102

Lord (Dr.), 326

Lynde, Nathaniel, 28

Man, Elisha, 58

Richard, 58

Mann, ——, 273

Mary, 35

Manwaring, Christopher, 102

Robert, 102

Robert A., 102

Marvin (Mrs.), 104

Mather, Cotton, 365, 391

Matthews, ——, 186, 187

McEwen, Abel M., 29, 30, 33, 48, 49, 51, 56, 98-102, 109, 114, 253,

336

McGinley, John, 112

Middleton, John, 108

Mumford, Stephen, 127

Neal Dan’l. (Hist. of N.E.), 87

Newcomb family, 104

Niles, John M., 94-97

Norton, Humphrey, 86

Noyes, James, 140

Moses, 184

Owaneco [Chief], 124, 166

Paine, Robert T., 317

Palmer, Christopher, 107

Elisha, 104

Frank, 104

George S., 104

Reuben, 104

Tyler, 104

Parker, Thomas, 121

Parnell, Delia S., 317

Pattison, Edward, 121

Peck, Charles H., 108

Ellen P., 108

Perkins, Anna, 102

Nathaniel, 103, 376

Perry, Amos, 112

Phillips, Andrew W., 110

Picket, John, 68

Plumb, Hannah, 272

John, 272

Peter, 272

Powell, Aaron M., 317

Pratt, Elizabeth, 54, 164

Peter, 15, 37, 38, 52-54, 57, 59, 61, 63-72, 136, 137, 145, 156,

160, 164, 201, 209, 210, 216, 241, 243, 248, 257, 278,

321-327, 368, 391

Prentice, Edward, 110

Elizabeth, 265

Prentis, John, 77, 79

Stephen, 164

Pynchon, John (Col.), 21, 299

John, 299

Ransford, Mary, 66, 67, 196-205, 207, 210, 214, 241, 323, 324, 326,

332, 336, 338

Ray (Justice), 68

Richards, Jane, 103

Rogers, Adam, 217

Alexander, 293, 300, 304, 387, 389

Anne, 300

Bathsheba, 22, 103, 112, 125, 140, 171, 172, 249, 264, 265

Daniel, 109

Delight, 277, 376

Elizabeth, 23, 102, 111, 125, 129, 131, 132, 136, 142, 144, 160,

164, 194, 300

George, 104

Gershom, 265

Gilbert, 281

James,[A]

Joanna, 241

John,[A]

Jonathan, 22, 23, 82, 131-133, 139, 142, 143, 148, 149, 153, 163,

166, 172, 174, 175, 188-190, 193, 215, 216, 230

Joseph, 124, 130, 142,144, 146, 154, 155, 163, 167, 174-176, 189,

207, 215, 240

Lucy, 102

Mary, 23, 143, 144, 241, 249, 265, 274

Naomi, 149, 154

Nathaniel, 293

Peter, 107, 108

President, 104

Samuel, 121, 124, 147, 153, 166, 187, 207, 232, 240, 272, 277,

281, 293, 333

Sarah 190, 241, 242,247, 248

William, 300

William A., 110

W. F. M., 107

-----

Footnote A:

This name occurs too often to make indexing of any value.

-----

Rowland, Elizabeth, 121

Samuel, 121, 124

Sabin (Dictionary of Books), 388, 390

Sachse, Julius F., 16, 275, 288

Saltonstall, Dudley, 271

Gurdon, 26, 28-31, 37, 41, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 60, 73, 76, 77,

79, 81, 82, 86, 164, 165, 167, 168, 173, 174, 176-178,

180-187, 191, 193, 194, 202, 207, 214, 215, 222, 224, 225,

228, 234, 236-238, 243, 257, 268, 271, 276, 283, 326, 331,

336-339, 374, 375, 377, 390

Nathaniel, 271

Richard, 164

Rosewell, 271

Saulsbury (Family Histories), 55

Savol, John, 277

Selwyn (Digest), 29

Smith, Anson, 110

Smith, Bathsheba, 23,25, 103, 125, 139, 142-144, 146, 154, 155,

163, 167, 170, 173, 180, 207

Clayton B., 107

Ely, 207

Hamilton, 110

James, 103, 167, 207, 231, 233, 237

John, 167, 231

Parker, 103

Richard, 125, 142, 154, 155, 231

Smith, Robert, 103

Samuel, 293

Stanbury, Elisha, 388

Stanton, Thomas, 124

Steer, Richard, 82, 188

Stewart, William, 386

Stow, Samuel, 184

Strickland, Peter, 105

Strong (Rev. Dr.), 93

Stubbins, Daniel, 62

Taber, Job, 104

Tanner, Abel, 107

Tarbox, Increase N., 121

Thrall, Charles U., 111

Thurston, B. B., 103, 111

Benjamin, 107

Trumbull (History of Conn.), 19, 20, 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 63, 326

J. H., 121

Tubbs, Mary, 62, 63

Turnbull (Memorials), 91

Turner, David, 111

David S., 111

Isabel, 104

Jennie, 112

Mary, 104

Patience, 104

Peter C., 104

Thomas, 104, 333

Uncas [Chief], 166

Underhill, John, 121

Wadsworth, Benjamin, 260, 352, 389

Waller, T. M., 103

Tracy, 107

Waterhouse, Waterus and Watrous

Amos, 334

Clarissa, 334

Content, 333

Esther, 254, 299, 312

Henry, 389

Jabez, 334

Jacob, 253

John, 104, 251-255, 258, 259, 263-266, 269, 270, 275, 283, 286,

290, 299, 300, 302, 304, 312, 313, 333, 392

Mary, 104

Rachel, 334

Timothy, 293, 300, 302-304, 313, 332, 333, 383

Walter, 269

William, 333, 334

Zacharia, 303, 304

Zephania, 302, 305, 308, 309, 312, 334

Watson, ——, 96

Amelia M., 111

Caleb, 184

Edith S., 111

Reed (Mrs.), 392

Way, Joanna, 25, 157, 158

Weair, Abraham, 273

Weaver, family, 104

West, Ebenezer, 58

Wetherell, ——, 23, 143

Daniel, 28, 177, 183

Whaley (Mrs.), 319

Whipple, Anne, 300

Whipple, Content, 300, 333

Daniel, 300

Elizabeth, 300

Enoch, 319

Hope, 300

Ira, 307

Jonathan, 313-315, 317-319

Noah, 300

Samuel, 299, 300

Silas, 300

Zacharia, 300

Zephania, 300

Zerah C., 314-316

Whitney, Isabel, 104

Williams, Anna B., 112

Winthrop (Governor), 21, 66, 113, 122, 123, 199, 213

Wolcott, [Alexander], (Dr.), 110

Henry, 98, 125, 129

Simon, 102, 129

Wood, John, 121

Woodbridge (Rev.), 332

Ephraim, 295

Timothy, 184

Woodward, John, 58

Wright (Justice), 241

William, 180, 181, 185-187, 190, 192, 193, 196, 219, 220

Young, John, 177

Thomas, 174, 177, 183, 194, 222

Note.—The Edmund Edmundson, referred to on page 209, should be

William Edmundson; also spelled Edmonson.

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

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

Transcriber’s Note

On p. 102, two references to a James Rogers are followed by

superscripted ‘4’ and ‘2’, which would seem to each denote a

separate James, presumably by generation.

On p. 333, the single footnote (numbered here as 190) had no anchor

in the text. It has been arbitrarily added near the top of the page,

after the first mention of the three variants of the name

‘Waterhouse’ described in the note.

Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been

corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and

line in the original. The following issues should be noted, along

with the resolutions.

109.23 the purpose for which the question was Added.

asked[.]

203.9 if she con[t]inue her refusal Inserted.

271.31 a good Christian [exaplary] in his Living _sic_:

exemplary?

302.27 with an instrument of [prim] obs. for

privet, a

shrub