Footnotes
1. Yet they seem to have regarded experience and common-sense remedies as a part of natural means, since they made use of ordinary home remedies and good nursing.
2. Although New London, at that time, included all that is now known as Groton, Ledyard, Stonington, Montville, Waterford and East Lyme, we find, by the proportion which James Rogers paid for the support of the minister, that his property amounted to about one-tenth of that of the entire plantation. The minister’s salary was £80 a year. Says Miss Caulkins: “Rate lists for the minister’s tax are extant for the years 1664, 1666 and 1667. In this list the amount of each man’s taxable property is given and the rate levied upon it is carried out. The assessment of James Rogers is nearly double that of any other inhabitant.” His rate was £7 19s. 10d., nearly three times that of Governor Winthrop, which was £2 14s.
3. The first Baptist church of Newport was formed before May, 1639, by some excommunicated members of the church at Boston and others. From its organization, it rejected the supervision of civil magistrates. Dr. John Clarke was its founder and first pastor. In 1671, several member of Mr. Clarke’s church organized themselves into the Sabbatarian or Seventh Day Baptist Church of Newport (then Aquedneck) which James Rogers and his family joined, as above stated.
4. It will be understood that while “profaning” the first day Sabbath, they were strictly keeping the scriptural seventh day Sabbath.
5. For particular account of this and a previous countermove, see Part II, Chap. 2.
6. About 1705, the Rogerene Society came to the conclusion that the Jewish Sabbath and ordinances were, according to the teachings of the New Testament, done away with by the new dispensation, and they began to hold their meetings on Sunday as the more convenient day. See Part II, Chap. VI.
7. During the countermove, 1764-1766. See Part II, Chapter XII.
8. Here John Rogers quotes from Peter Pratt.
9. That this was the true ground, both on the part of the Griswolds and the General Court, is patent in the light of the many evidences, but this being untenable ground for a divorce, an ostensible cause was presented by the Griswolds, which, upon investigation by the grand jury, brought forth “we find not the bill.” The divorce was, therefore, granted upon no legal grounds and with no stated cause. For the authenticated facts, see Part II, Chapter XI.
10. This act was not materially different from the former laws of this kind.
11. We have been unable to find any historical account of Banks and Case; but that any of the Quakers were “lewd men,” is so incredible as to need more proof than the mere assertion of Peter Pratt.
12. Governor Winthrop.
13. Not for baptizing a person, but for going to baptize a person, was Rogers arrested. “Yet,” said Gov. Saltonstall, “there never was any one that suffered on account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this people.” The law against baptizing (other than by the standing order) was simply a fine for every such baptism.
14. Abundant proof of the prominent stand taken by John Rogers himself in behalf of religious liberty will be found not only throughout this volume but by extracts from his writings to be found in Appendix.
15. This “Message” of John Bolles was written when the Rogerenes were not under virulent persecution, of which there was cessation after the death of Gov. Saltonstall (1724) until the time of Mather Byles over thirty years later. See Part II.
16. This is an error. He became a Rogerene after the Rogerene Society had given up the Seventh Day Sabbath.
17. Such religious debates were common in those days between persons of different persuasions, especially ministers, elders, etc.
18. The fact that prim still grows abundantly upon the farm once owned and occupied by John Rogers, may be an exception worthy of note.
19. Apparently, Mr. McEwen judged the Puritan Sabbath to have been one and the same with the “religion of the gospel.”
20. Thomas Turner came to New London, as a young man, about 1721. He married Patience, daughter of John Bolles, in 1727. She died December 18, 1769, aged sixty-one. After her death he married Mary (née Harris), widow of John Waterhouse 2d, and after her death he married Isabel Whitney. His first marriage was by the regular form common with the New London Rogerenes; his second and third marriages were by the Quaker form prevalent in Quakertown at that date, and were recorded by Joseph Bolles, clerk of the Rogerene Society. See Chapter XIV. Thomas Turner lived in Montville. He died in 1791, aged ninety-two.
21. “Secretary Bolles” is mentioned in the Biglow Papers. He wrote an “Essay on Usury and Usury Laws,” published by the Boston Chamber of Commerce, which led to the suspension of usury laws on short bills of exchange.
22. Obituary Notice of Elder Peter Rogers, by Rev. J. M. Peck, D.D., of Illinois. Published in the Minutes of the Pastoral Union for 1850.
23. Later a professor in Chicago University.
24. This young man reproduced, from a description given him by his grandmother, Mrs. Haven, the old John Rogers house, near which Mrs. Haven lived in her youth, and where she used to visit her aunt Elizabeth Rogers. (See the Genealogy entitled “James Rogers and His Descendants,” for the drawing by Mr. Thrall.)
25. Her daughter, Anna Hempstead Branch, is now well known as one of our young poets.
26. Not to be confounded with Bolles Hill where Joshua Bolles resided, which is a mile and a half from above location.
27. The parentage and native place of James Rogers remain undiscovered. He may, or may not, have been the James Rogers who came over in the Increase (Hotten). There were several of the same name and date in New England. There is a tradition in the New London family, which can be traced as far back as 1750, that James Rogers of New London was a grandson, or greatgrandson, of John Rogers the martyr. Up to this date (1904) no proof has been found to substantiate this claim. The same claim has been made by descendants of other first settlers of the name of Rogers, and their traditions are also proven to have been of early date. These long-standing and very persistent traditions may possibly be explained by some future discovery.
28. 1679—James Rogers sells Thos. Parker 50 A. of land that were granted James Rogers of N. London, by the Gen. Court, he being a Pequot soldier.—New London Land Records.
Also in “Memorial History of Hartford,” by J. Hammond Trumbull (pub. 1886), p. 81, is a chapter on the Pequot War, by Rev. Increase N. Tarbox, which names the men from Saybrook, viz. “John Underhill, Edward Pattison, James Rogers, Edward Lay, John Gallup and John Wood.”
29. An ancient mill built in 1728, on or very near the site of the first mill, is still standing (see “Hempstead Diary,” page 200). Less than fifty years ago, the cove was a beautiful sheet of water commencing just in front of the mill, separated from it by little more than the width of the winding street, and from thence stretching out in rippling, shining currents to the river. This cove has been so filled in of recent years that considerable imagination must be exercised to reproduce the ancient sweep of clear, blue water known as Winthrop’s Cove.
30. In 1664 he gave his son Samuel land “by the mill” “west side of my wharf.”
31. Occupied by his son-in-law after Mr. Winthrop’s removal to Hartford In 1657.
32. Still to be seen in “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in State Library, Hartford.
33. See same “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors” for Marriage Settlement.
34. In after life he was accustomed to say that it was the richest cargo he ever shipped and the best bargain he ever made.—History of New London.
It was a frequent custom in those days, for persons emigrating to the colonies to pay the expenses of their passage by selling their services for a term after landing. Such passengers were called “redemptioners.” Thus, Captain James actually purchased, as the term was, his wife Mary.
35. The account given by their son of this joint conviction of John Rogers and his wife furnishes evidence of a considerable period in which they were in full friendship and accord after the disclosure made to the wife. For account, see Part I, Chapter III.
36. There were, on the law books, so-called capital crimes which were never punished as such. “Man-stealing” was a so-called capital crime, yet we shall find, further on, that it was punishable by an ordinary fine. No mention is made on the court records or files of the crime of which John Rogers was accused by the Griswolds, on charge of which he was examined at Hartford. No record was made of this matter, and we have only vague mention on the court files of the petition of Elizabeth for this divorce by which to even conjecture the nature of the charge.
37. Here is an apparent variation, at the outset, from the Newport church.
38. By negroes is meant negro and Indian servants or slaves, of which there were a number in the Rogers family, the slaves being held for a term of years.
39. That John Rogers could not be induced to either admit or deny the charge presented for the purpose of obtaining the divorce, is from a statement to that effect made by Peter Pratt, in “The Prey Taken from the Strong.” This is one of the few statements made in that pamphlet, which seem likely to be true and are not invalidated by proof to the contrary. It will be seen that, at a later date, this attitude of complete silence is frequent with the Rogerenes, before the court.
40. May 25, 1675.
“The testimony against him was his own wife—to whom he told it all with his own mouth, and not in trouble of mind, but in a boasting manner as of free grace, yt he was pardoned. This was much about ye time he fell into yt cursed opinion of anabaptism.”—Journal of Mr. Bradstreet. (See “New England Genealogical and Historical Register,” Vol. 9, p. 47.)
With above compare:—
“After it pleased God, through His rich grace in Christ Jesus, to take the guilt of my sins from my conscience and to send the Spirit of His Son into my heart, whereby he did reveal unto me His love and His acceptance of me in Jesus Christ, this unspeakable mercy did greatly engage my heart to love God and diligently to search the Scriptures, that thereby I might know how to serve God acceptably, for then I soon became a seeker how to worship God.”—Epistle of John Rogers to the Seventh Day Baptists.
“And the coming to witness the truth of those Scriptures, by God’s giving him a new heart and another spirit, and by remitting the guilt of his sins, did greatly engage him to love God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself.”—John Rogers, Jr.—Reply to Peter Pratt.
41. See preamble to will of James Rogers, Part I., Chapter I.
42. See “History of Stratford.”
43. An evident attempt is made by the Griswolds, in inserting this item in the bill for damages, to lay the illness of Elizabeth following the birth of her child to some failure on the part of the young husband to suitably provide for her confinement. Her son, John Rogers, 2d, however, in his “Reply” to his half-brother, Peter Pratt, mentions a far more serious and lengthy illness that befell Elizabeth upon the birth of her latter son, during which illness both she and her husband, Peter Pratt, Sr., had great misgivings regarding the justice of her divorce from John Rogers. That the illness in either case was of a constitutional origin is indicated by the parallel cases.
44. Elizabeth afterwards appears to have all the rents towards support of the children. Later, when the children are grown, she gives up the farm to John Rogers, for a reasonable consideration, as will be seen.
45. The facts contained in this chapter, not otherwise indicated, are from Letters of Mr. Samuel Hubbard.
46. Prayers an hour or more in length were common at that time.
47. Before long, the Newport church sends Mr. Gibson to live and preach upon the Great Neck, to such Sabbatarians as hold merely with the doctrines and customs of that church. Between this pastor and John Rogers, pastor of the still newer departure, we find no evidence of collision.
48. This farm is afterwards conveyed to Jonathan, with other valuable property, by the will of his father.
49. A prominent Seventh Day Baptist of England.
50. This statement of Governor Leete has been quoted against the Rogerenes again and again.
51. It will be remembered that the officers were themselves liable to be fined if they failed to execute the Sunday laws, and that any religious meetings whatever other than those prescribed by the standing order were against the law, both those holding and those attending such meetings being liable to fine or—in case of non-payment—imprisonment.
52. They were forced to pay for bed and board during imprisonment. Sometimes a prisoner brought a bed of his own.
53. From Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Peter Pratt, 2d.
54. The failing health of James Rogers, Sr., is sufficient to account for his not being arrested for servile work at this time.
55. It will later be seen that the custom, on such occasions, of ejecting disturbers of meeting from the church in a violent manner, was calculated to create a general excitement among the spectators.
56. That no actual relapse to Quakerism had occurred at the time should have been evident from the fact that John Rogers is, even in this very month of June, baptizing, and undoubtedly as usual administering the Lord’s Supper, ordinances to which the Quakers were entirely opposed.
57. See “Prey Taken from the Strong,” and Reply to same by John Rogers, 2d.
58. See Part I, Chap. I. For full preamble, see “James Rogers and His Descendants,” by J. S. Rogers, Boston.
59. In point of fact, only one of the children made any complaint regarding boundaries; but this complaint resulted in a suit that was carried through several courts. Undoubtedly, by a cursory view of this frequently appearing suit and also that of Samuel Beebe, on the records, Miss Caulkins judged that there was a general “contention.” Rev. Mr. Blake, in his Church History—New London Congregational—in adopting this error of Miss Caulkins, has rendered it that “the children” of James Rogers “engaged in bitter controversies” over his estate.
60. Stephen Prentis eventually became one of the prominent and wealthy citizens of the place, a holder of local and colonial offices, captain of a train band, attorney and also a farmer on a large scale. He was a member of the Congregational church through life, as was also his wife. Their home farm was near what is now Mill Stone Point.
61. Miss Caulkins states that his mother afterwards attempted to secure his return to her, but could not succeed in overcoming his determination to remain with his father. The evidence of this has escaped our observation.
62. His son states (see Part I) that his imprisonments amounted to one-third of his life after his conversion, viz.: one-third of the period between 1674 and 1721.
63. Contributions of articles, even of clothing, for the poor, for the minister or for church adornment, and other purposes, were common in those days; and for such donations there was a large box, quite stationary, and usually near the pulpit. This appears not to have been known to Miss Caulkins, who supposes a box to have been passed around, as the box for money contributions of later times.
64. For Apology, see Part I, Chap. I.
65. This thirteen acres is called a “grant to Robert Hempstead” “in the first division.” It is probably the lot belonging to the house she occupies, viz.: the home lot of her husband. It is a part of the land willed to Captain James.
66. It afterwards appears that this movable estate included a number of young slaves, commonly called “servants.”
67. It appears it was the intention of the widow that Joan should not be transferred to Elizabeth until after her own decease; since we do not find Samuel Beebe claiming and demanding her until some time after that event, although it appears evident that this gift was designated by the widow at about this time, 1692.
68. By the codicil John and Bathsheba are first to take what they wish of “the things about the house,” the other movables “whatsoever” to be divided by John, Bathsheba and James among themselves.
69. This may refer in part to his mother’s deposition, which figured in the evidence before the arbiters to the effect that Joseph had “not just cause to molest Jonathan.”
70. This protest by Joseph’s wife is recorded on the New London land records, under the deed of gift of 1670.
71. Mr. Thomas Young must have been an earnest seeker after truth, or he would not have braved the opposition of his Congregational friends by opening his house to a meeting of the Rogerenes. He appears to have been a son, or grandson, of Rev. John Young, of Southold, L.I., a Puritan of so true a stamp that he was forbidden to embark for America. Evidently New London did not prove a satisfactory residence for Mr. Thomas Young, since he eventually removed to Southold, where his friendship with John Rogers continued, as also after his later removal to Oyster Bay, L.I.
72. For record evidence, see Chapter V.
73. Apparently the Scripture expounded on this occasion was Romans viii.
74. Probably shoes of his own manufacture.
75. It is from the account of Mr. Bownas (conversation with John Rogers) we gain knowledge that there were “goods” in the wheelbarrow, which were offered for sale before the pulpit. The court record mentions only the wheelbarrow. Mr. Bownas had evidently a mixed recollection of this portion of John Roger’s conversation (relating to work, etc., upon the first day Sabbath), since he appears to suppose this was a thing that might have happened more than once, whereas it was an extraordinary measure suited to an extraordinary occasion, and one which would surely receive court notice and record.
In his conversation with Mr. Bownas, John Rogers also said, in this connection, “that the provocations he met with from the priests, who stirred up the people and the mob against him, might sometimes urge him further than he was afterwards easy with in opposing them, but that when he kept his place he had inexpressible comfort and peace in what he did;” adding, “the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God.”
76. “I John Rogers, a servant of Jesus Christ, here make an open declaration of war against the great red dragon and against the beast to which he gives power; and against the false church that rides upon the beast; and against the false prophets who are established by the dragon and the beast; and also a proclamation of derision against the sword of the devil’s spirit, which is prisons, stocks, whips, fines and revilings, all of which is to defend the religion of devils.”
77. The “&c.” is of the record.
78. Although the “Proclamation” put out at the prison window appears (by absence on the court records) not to have figured in open court, it was evidently in the minds of these priestly judges.
79. After diligent search, no evidence has been found of enmity on the part of the Rogerenes towards the Stonington church.
80. Miss Caulkins says regarding this burning of the meeting-house: “It was supposed to be an act of incendiarism, and public fame attributed it to the followers of John Rogers. Several of these people were arrested and tried for the crime, but it could not be proved against them, and they may now without hesitation be pronounced innocent. Public sympathy was enlisted on the other side, and had they committed a deed which was then esteemed a high degree of sacrilege, it is difficult to believe they could have escaped exposure and penalty.”
81. The capital crime with which he was charged appears not to have been well-proven, for which reason the condemned prisoner petitioned that there might be a fuller investigation. (See Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors, State Library.) The fact that, although meriting severe punishment, this youth was not guilty to the extent presumed by the penalty, is indicated by his after reprieve.
82. Where he was doubtless confined for his “disturbance outside the meeting house” in the recent countermove, the “ten stripes” being too mild a punishment.
83. A very distinct glimpse of the power given to ministers of the standing order in state legislation.
84. The words spoken do not appear on record.
85. It would be interesting to know exactly what doctrine or doctrines were involved. By the occurrence of this suit so soon after John Roger’s release from an imprisonment on charge of “Blasphemy,” it would seem not unlikely that the Scripture expounded at the house of Thomas Young in 1694 (probably Romans viii) might be that in question. Public “disputes” of this kind were then and for many years after in vogue in Connecticut.
86. For full title, see publications of John Rogers, at end of Appendix.
87. This fact is revealed by after procedures regarding settlement of the residue of the estate, her death not being found on record.
88. The County Court record says Mary was fined for “threatening” to pour scalding water on the head of the collector. Miss Caulkins inadvertently says she was fined for “pouring” the same.
89. In this treatise “On Divorce,” he shows that the New Testament admits but one cause for divorce, and does not admit adultery as a cause. Therefore (by inference), although, by her after marriages, his first wife leads an adulterous life (see statement of his son, Part I., Chapter IV.), he does not consider that this fact releases him from his marriage bond. But since, by the law of God (“Mosaic” and still prevailing in the time of Christ), a man was allowed another than his first and chiefest wife, in taking Mary Ransford for his wife under the forced separation from his first wife, he breaks no law of God. Not that he so much as mentions himself, Elizabeth or Mary in this treatise; but the above is plainly inferable to those acquainted with his history at this period. Since, in granting the divorce to Elizabeth, the court left him free to marry again, he broke no civil law in taking another wife.
90. It may be left to legal judgment to decide whether this marriage was not more in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law than was the divorce granted by the General Court of Connecticut, through no testimony save that of a wife, bent on divorce, against her husband, regarding a matter which he had confided to her in marital confidence; said divorce being granted in the very face of the “we find not the bill” rendered by the grand jury in regard to the charge made by the wife.
91. Everything involved in the command to “render to Cæsar,” etc., being a law of Christ, he held binding, as regarded ordinary civil legislation.
92. Mary’s account in her petition to the General Court, 1703. See “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Court Files.
93. The statements in this paragraph are from an affidavit still extant at New London, in the handwriting of John Rogers.
94. “Prey Taken from the Strong.”
95. See account of this court scene, by John Rogers, 2d. (Part I., Chapter V.).
96. Miss Caulkins states that Mary was threatened by this court with heavy penalties if she returned to John Rogers. Although the evidence of this has escaped our notice, Miss Caulkins doubtless came across such evidence.
97. This “afraid of my life” is a common expression, and was especially so formerly, by way of emphasis. Matthew Beckwith could not have been actually afraid of his life in regard to a man whose principles did not allow of the slightest show of physical force in dealing with an opponent. Although the court record says that John Rogers “used threatening words against Matthew Beckwith,” on presentation by Matthew Beckwith’s complaint, this does not prove any intention of physical injury.
98. This by his statement to Mr. Bownas at this date.
99. This shows us that at a date long prior to the time when we shall find a sturdy band of Rogerene youth, of Rogers and of Bolles blood, on Quaker Hill, there was no lack of young people in training to carry forward this cause.
100. He makes no mention of this occurrence in his book.
101. “Prey Taken from the Strong.”
102. Their services for preaching and expounding were always public; their (evening) meetings for prayer and praise were for believers, after the manner of the early church.
103. “Things about the house John and Bathsheba must take them first before the others be divided.”—Codicil.
104. The pedigree of John Bolles in the male line is traceable to time of the Conqueror. The name is on the Roll of Battle Abbey.
105. The Thomas Bolles place is now the Lyman Allyn farm on the Norwich road. Just south of the Allyn house is the site of an old well. By this well stood the house of Thomas Bolles, where occurred the murder of his wife and two children, leaving only the babe, John. (For particulars, see “Bolles Genealogy.”)
106. His house stood just south of present house of Mr. Calvert. His father’s home farm was about one-fourth of a mile south of this point.
107. John Bolles further says in regard to the persecution he suffered upon joining the Rogerenes: “God gave me such a cheerful spirit in this warfare, that when I had not the knowledge that the grand-jury man saw me at work on said day, I would inform against myself before witness, till they gave out and let me plow and cart and do whatsoever I have occasion on that day.”
Here will be recognized an imitation of the early policy of the Rogerenes in time of persecution, a policy likely to have been recommended to all their followers; viz.: to give their opponents so much more trouble when molesting them than when letting them alone that the institution of a season of severe measures will be the less liable to occur. This is the policy recognizable in the countermove, so sure to take place in time of severe persecution.
108. It will be seen that as late as 1716 (see Chapter IX.), so prominent a Rogerene as John Bolles was even declared to be “ignorant of this law.” That he ignored it, with all other ecclesiastical laws, is more likely to have been the case.
109. A Baptist church springs up at Groton and one on the Great Neck. The Baptist edifice on the Great Neck (“Pepper Box”) is used in an admirably liberal and pacific manner by both the regular Baptists and the Seventh Day Baptists. The leading members of these two friendly societies are largely of Rogers descent;—descendants of Captain James and of Joseph being of the first-day persuasion, and those of Jonathan of the seventh day, as a rule. Since the history of these societies on the Great Neck has been given by Miss Caulkins more largely than would be possible in this work, the reader is referred to the “History of New London” for particulars regarding them.
110. For what cause or by what pretense this imprisonment occurs does not appear. It is revealed by a statement made by Peter Pratt himself. (“Prey Taken from the Strong.”) In referring to his being imprisoned with other Rogerenes, he speaks of his wife as a bride at that time. He was married in 1709.