After John Roger’s first wife had left him, on account of his religion, he remained single for more than twenty-five years, in hopes that she would come to repentance and forsake her unlawful companions. But, seeing no change in her, he began to think of marrying another woman, and, accordingly, did agree upon marriage with a maid belonging to New London, whose name was Mary Ransford. They thereupon agreed to go into the County Court and there declare their marriage; and accordingly they did so, he leading his bride by the hand into court, where the judges were sitting and a multitude of spectators present, and then desired the whole assembly to take notice that he took that woman to be his wife; his bride also assenting to what he said. Whereupon, the judge offered to marry them in their form, which John Rogers refused, telling him that he had once been married by their Authority, and by their Authority they had taken away his wife again and rendered him no reason why they did it. Upon which account, he looked at their form of marriage to be of no value, and therefore would be married by their form no more, etc. And from the court he went to the Governor’s house with his bride, and declared their marriage to the Governor,[12] who seemed to like it well enough, and wished them much joy, which is a usual compliment.
And thus having given a true and impartial relation of the manner of his marriage to his second wife, which I doubt not but every unprejudiced person will judge to be as authentic as any marriage that was ever made in Connecticut Colony, in the next place, I shall proceed to inform the reader in what manner he came to be deprived of this his second wife; for, after they had lived together about three years and had had two children, the court had up John Roger’s wife and charged her with fornication, for having her last child, pretending no other reason than that the marriage was not lawful; and thereupon called her Mary Ransford, after her maiden name. And then vehemently urged her to give her oath who was the father of her child, which they charged to be by fornication, her husband standing by her in court, with the child in his arms, strictly commanding her not to take the oath, for these three following reasons:—
First, because it was contrary to Christ’s command, Matt. v, 34, “But I say unto you, swear not at all,” etc.
A second reason was because it was a vain oath, inasmuch as they had been married so publickly, and then lived together three years after, and that he himself did not deny his child, nor did any person doubt who was the father of the child, etc.
A third reason was, he told her, they laid a snare for her, and wanted her oath to prove their charge, which was that the child was by fornication; so that her swearing would be that he was the father of that child by fornication, and so it would not only be a reproach to him and the child, but also a false oath, forasmuch as the child was not by fornication.
For these reasons, he forbid her taking the oath, but bid her tell the court that her husband was the father of that child in his arms. He also told her in the court that if she would be ruled by him, he would defend her from any damage. But if she would join with the court against him, by being a witness that the child was by fornication, he should scruple to own her any more as a wife.
But the court continuing to urge her to take the oath, promising her favor if she took it, and threatening her with severity if she refused to take it, at length she declared she would not be ruled by John Rogers, but would accept of the court’s favor, and so took the oath; and the favor which the court granted her was to pass the following sentence:—
New London, at a County Court, the 15th of September, 1702.
Mary Ransford of New London, being presented by the grandjurymen to this court, for having a child by fornication, which was born in March last, and she being now brought before this court to answer for the same, being examined who was the father of her child, she said John Rogers senior of New London, to which she made oath, the said Rogers being present.
The court having considered her offense, sentence her, for the same, to pay unto the County Treasurer forty shillings money, or to be whipt ten stripes on the naked body. She is allowed till the last of November to pay the fine.
A true copy of the Record, as far as it respects the said Mary Ransford, her examination and fine.
And now the poor woman found that by her oath she had proved her child illegitimate, and thereby denied her marriage, and that her husband dare not own her as a wife; for I think that no woman can be said to be a wife (though ever so lawfully married) if she turn so much against her husband as not only to disobey his most strict commands, but also to prove by her oath that his children are by fornication, as it was in this case. She was also greatly terrified on account of her whipping, to avoid which she some time after made her escape out of the Government, to a remote Island in Rhode Island Government, called Block Island; and in about eight years after she had thus been driven from her husband she was married to one Robert Jones, upon said Island, with whom she still lives in that Government.
Whereupon, John Rogers again lived single twelve years, which was four years after she was married to Robert Jones, and then he made suit to one Sarah Coles of Oyster Bay, on Long Island, a widow, and by reason of the many false reports which had spread about the Country, as if he had turned away his second wife, etc., he offered the woman to carry her to Block Island, where she might know the truth of the matter, by discoursing with the woman herself, as well as the Authority and neighbors, which accordingly he did; by which means she was so well satisfied that she proposed to be married before they came off; and accordingly was married, by Justice Ray.
There are other scandalous stories quoted nearly verbatim from Pratt’s book by Trumbull, which neither space, nor the patience of the reader, nor delicacy permits us to repeat, all of which have been completely refuted by John Rogers, 2d, in his “Reply” to the same.
We will presently entertain the reader with Pratt’s poetical effort deriding baptism by immersion, concerning which John Rogers, 2d, replies. It should be remembered that Peter Pratt was the son of John Roger’s first wife, by her second husband, and was much at the house of John Rogers, Sr., on visits to his half brother, John, 2d. He was baptized (viz., rebaptized by immersion) by Rogers, and even suffered imprisonment, at one time, with other Rogerenes, but apostatized under persecution and returned to the Congregational church, from which, after the death of Rogers, he threw at him those poisonous shafts of which the reader has seen some specimens.
Here follow Pratt’s verses, quoted in “Reply” of John Rogers, 2d:—
And now as to his songs and other verses, I shall be very brief, only mentioning some of the gross blasphemies which they contain, not doubting that all sober Christians, together with myself, will abhor such profaneness as may be seen in page 36, and is as follows:—
I suppose he intends by that sacramental bond by which he says his soul was tied to Christ, that non-scriptural practice of sprinkling a little water out of a basin on his face in his unregenerate state. Now the scriptures abundantly show us that the Spirit of God is the bond by which God’s children are sealed or united to him; as Eph. i, 13, Eph. iv, 3 and 30, John iii, 24. Thus it plainly appears it is the Spirit of God that is the bond by which God’s children are united to Christ, and not by sprinkling a little elementary water on their faces, as Peter Pratt has ignorantly and blasphemously asserted.
Whereas he says he suffered his body to be washed as Satan instituted, I suppose he intends his being baptized according to the rule of Scripture of which he gives us an account, page 18, how that he was stirred up to this ordinance from those words, Acts xxii, 16, “And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins,” and that accordingly he was baptized by burying his body in the water.
As to the first institutor of this ordinance, we know that John the Baptist was the first practiser of it, therefore let us take his testimony as to the institutor of it, which is to be seen John i, 33, “And I knew Him not, but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit,” etc.
And here I suppose none but Peter Pratt will dare deny that it was God Almighty that instituted this ordinance and sent John the Baptist to administer it.
Having given a specimen of Peter Pratt’s poetical effusions, we will further entertain the reader with some verses by John Rogers, 2d, which precede his “Reply” to Pratt’s book:—
A certain tribe of Indians would not allow the burial of any one until some person could speak a word in his praise. On one such occasion, silence long reigned, when a squaw arose and said, “He was a good smoker.” What can we say of Peter Pratt, that the right of sepulture may be granted him? This may be said: He at one time thought he had discovered the “wonderful art of longitude,” by which he expected to be made famous the world over, and presented his scheme to the faculty of Yale College, who regarded it as the product of an hallucinated mind. Upon this, Pratt gave up the fallacy, which should be spoken to his praise. The following testimony which he gave in his book regarding John Rogers, 2d, and incidentally in favor of John Rogers senior, should also be put to his credit:—
My near alliance to John Rogers (then junior) who is my brother, viz., the son of my mother, proved an unhappy snare to me. He being, naturally, a man as manly, wise, facetious and generous perhaps as one among a thousand, I was exceedingly delighted in and with his conversation. He also endeared himself to me very much by his repeated expressions of complacency in me, by which I was induced to be frequently in his company and often at his house, where his father would be entertaining me with exhortations to a religious life, warning me of the danger of sin, and certainty of that wrath which shall come on all that know not God. I would sometimes, for curiosity, be inquiring into his principles, and othertimes, for diversion, be disputing a point with him; but I knew not that the dead were there, Prov. ix, 18. I was not religious enough to be much concerned about his principles, but pitiful enough to be extremely moved with the story of his sufferings. I had also a reserve in his favor, that it was possible he might be a good man (the strangeness of his doctrine notwithstanding), especially seeing all his sufferings were not able to shake his constancy, or oblige him to recede from the least part of his religion.
And here a just tribute may be paid to John Rogers, 2d, from whom we have so largely quoted. The appreciative reader will agree with us in saying he was a son worthy of the father, in defence of whose honor he wrote. Clear in his statement of facts, conclusive in his reasoning, and abundantly supplied with authority in proof of his assertions, his words bear the sacred impress of truth. Malice has raised no aspersions against his character. “Notwithstanding,” says Miss Caulkins, “his long testimony and his many weary trials and imprisonments, he reared to maturity a family of eighteen children, most of them, like their parents, sturdy Rogerenes.” As soon as he was able to make choice for himself, about the age of sixteen, he left the home of his grandfather, Matthew Griswold of Lyme, the ancestor of many noted men, and chose to live with his father. His sister did the same thing at the age of fourteen, and was married at her father’s house. A purer, sweeter, and higher tribute could scarcely be paid to that heroic defender of religious liberty and great sufferer for conscience’ sake.
John Rogers, 2d, was the author of several other books besides his “Reply to Peter Pratt,” each of them being of the same able character.
CHAPTER V.
“Nine and twenty knives.”—Ezra i, 9. It would take more than that number of knives to sever the many threads of falsehood and malice wound about the name of John Rogers, a name that may yet emerge as the royal butterfly from its chrysalis, to dwell in the light and atmosphere of heaven.
We must now charge the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, governor of the State of Connecticut, and judge of its Superior Court, with concocting a plan whereby he and his ecclesiastical accomplices might incarcerate John Rogers in the Hartford jail, exclude him from the light, and hide him from the public thought. Had this nefarious scheme succeeded, Rogers would doubtless have been held a close prisoner for life; but he was apprised of it and enabled to make his escape, like as St. Paul was let down in a basket from the wall of Damascus to elude the fury of his enemies. The governor’s suit against him for slanderous words—not slanderous in law—for which a subservient jury awarded him damages in the sum of £600, proves with what malign purpose Roger’s conduct was watched by him.
Here follows an account of the above mentioned plot and other matters, in Roger’s own words, copied from his address to the civil authorities and particularly to Gov. Saltonstall, in which he recounts some of the atrocious wrongs he had received from them,—wrongs which could hardly gain credence had they not been openly published at the time, during the life of Gov. Saltonstall, and not denied by him.
The last fine you fined me was ten shillings. All that I did was expounding upon a chapter in the Bible between your meetings, after the people were gone to dinner, which you call a riot. I went into no other seat but that which I was seated in by them whom the town appointed to seat every one. The building of the meeting-house cost me three of the best fat cattle I had that year and as many sheep as sold for thirty shillings in silver money. For which said fine of ten shillings, the officer took ten sheep, as some told me that helped to drive them away. The sheep were half my son’s. They were marked with a mark that we marked creatures with that were between us, which said mark had been recorded in the town book, I suppose for above twenty years. And after they were sold, the officer went into my son’s pasture, unbeknown to him, and took a milch cow which was between us (my part he hired), all upon the same fine of ten shillings. Such things as these have been frequently done upon us; but my purpose is brevity, and such things as these would contain a great volume; therefore I think to mention but one more. I was fined £20 by a Superior Court for charging an Inferior Court with injustice for trying upon life and death without a jury. The judge of the Superior Court that fined me was this present Governor, who also denied me a jury, though I chose the jury then panelled. For which £20 and the charges, an execution was laid upon land which I bought for my son, with his own money, and after it was taken away by said execution, he went and bought it of you this present Government, and gave you the money down for it, and you gave him a patent for it I think as substantial as your patent from the crown of England for your Government, upon all accounts, being sealed with your seal and with your present Governor’s hand and your Secretary’s to it. The patent cost 19s. to the Governor for signing it. And when you had got his money for it, and given him said patent, then you took this very individual land from him, and kept his money also, and left him nothing but said patent in his hand; for said Governor kept the deed which the man of whom I bought it gave, and keeps it to this day, I think for that end that my son may not help himself of said deed; for the man of whom I bought it lives in another Government.
I prosecuted the judges of your said Inferior Court before your General Court for judging upon life and death without a jury, it being by your own law out of their jurisdiction to judge in so high a fact without a jury; the fact also charged to be done in New York government; to wit, the stealing of three servants out of a man’s house on Long Island in the night. But you non-suited me in your Court of Chancery and laid all the charge upon me and fined me £20. So that if the poor man had not obtained justice in Boston Government, he had lost his wife and children by you, as I had mine; for he had tried in Rhode Island Government before, and had got bondsmen to answer all damages, if he did not make good his right and title to his wife and children. But said Governor of Rhode Island sent them back to this present Governor; but, by the good hand of God, they were after transported into Boston Government, by which means the poor man came at justice.
I thought to have concluded with what is above written; but, upon consideration that it is but two things among many, I shall set before you this last to the end of it. The said Inferior Court did proceed and pass judgment in a case that was upon life and death by the law of God, the law of England and your own law, upon a fact charged in another government, as above said, and without witness. And when I saw they would proceed, I then drew up the following protest and gave it unto your court.
The Protest of John Rogers, senior, of New London, against the proceedings of the present Court, against myself and John Jackson, being a pretended fact done upon Long Island, within the bounds and limits of the Government established there for to do justice and judgment within their limits and territories, and do appeal to their Court of Justice for a trial where I have evidence to clear myself of any such fact.
June 11, 1711.
John Rogers, Sr.
A true copy, testified George Denison, County Clerk.
And I do declare unto you, in the presence of God, that I was not at that time upon Long Island, when the fact was charged to be done, though I was at that time within the government of New York. But when I heard the said Court’s sentence, I did declare it to be injustice and rebellion against the laws of the crown of England; upon which charge, the said court demanded of me a bond of £200 to answer it at the next Superior Court. And when the Superior Court came, I desired to be tried by a jury, and chose that jury then sitting. But this present Governor, being judge of this Superior Court, denied me a jury and fined me £20 and required of me a great bond for my good behavior till the next Superior Court, which I refused to give, upon this reason that I would not reflect upon myself, as if I had misbehaved myself, as I had not. Whereupon, I was committed to prison, and kept a close prisoner in the inner prison, where no fire was allowed me, and that winter was a violent cold winter and there was no jailer, but the sheriff kept the keys, who lived half a mile distant from the prison, and my own habitation full two miles distant; so that it was a difficult thing for my friends to come at me; the prison new and not under-pinned, and stood upon blocks some distance from the ground; the floor, being planked with green plank, shrunk much and let in the cold. My son was wont in cold nights to come to the grates of the window to see how I did, and contrived privately in cold nights to help me with some fire (for the sheriff said he had order that no fire be allowed me), but could not find any way to make it do by giving it in at the grates, they being so close, and no place to make it within. But he, coming in a very cold night, called to me, and perceiving that I was not in my right senses, was in a fright, and ran along the street, crying, “The Authority hath killed my father!” and cried at the sheriff’s, “You have killed my father!” Upon which, the town was raised and my life was narrowly preserved, for forthwith the prison doors were opened and fire brought in, and hot stones wrapt in cloth and laid at my feet and about me, and the minister Adams sent me a bottle of spirits and his wife a cordial, whose kindness I must acknowledge. And the neighbors came about me with what relief they could, all which kindness I acknowledge. But when those of you in authority saw that I recovered, you had up my son and fined him for making a riot in the night, and he desired to be tried by a jury, but you dismissed the jury that was in being and panelled a jury purposely for him, as I was informed,—and since have seen it to be so by your own court record,—and took for the fine and charge three of the best cows I had.
In which prison I lay till the next Superior Court and in the sheriff’s house. The time of the bond demanded by them being out, I was dismissed. I think the next day, I was going to baptize a person,[13] and, as I was going to the water, the sheriff came to me and desired to speak with me. His house being close by, I went in with him. He went through two rooms and came to the door of the third, and then told me the Superior Court had ordered him to shut me up. Upon that, I made a stop and desired him to show me his order. He said it was by word of mouth. He keeping a tavern, there were many present who told him he ought not to shut me up without a written order. He then laid violent hands upon me to pull me in, but the people rescued me; and then he told me he would go to the court and get it in writing. And so he left me and brought this following Mittimus, this present Governor being judge of this Superior Court also.
“To the Sheriff of the County of New London, or to his Deputy:
“By special order of her Majesty’s Superior Court, now holden in New London, you are hereby required, in her Majesty’s name, to take John Rogers, Sr., of New London, who, to the view of said Court, appears to be under a high degree of distraction, and him secure in her majesty’s jail for the County abovesaid, in some dark room or apartment thereof, that proper means may be used for his cure, and till he be recovered from his madness and you receive order for his release.
“Signed by order of the said Court, March 26, 1712. In the 11th year of Her Majesty’s reign.
“Vera Copia, Testified
Jonathan Law, Clerk.
John Prentis, Sheriff.”
And upon this Mittimus, he carried me to prison and put me into the inner prison and had the light of the window stopt. Upon this, the common people was in an uproar, and broke the plank of the window and let light in. And one of the lieutenants that came out of England told me he had been with the said Superior Court and desired that I might be brought forth to their view, and they would see that I was under no distraction, and that they had ordered that I should be brought out to the Governor in the evening. When it was dark night, I was taken out by the sheriff and carried to the Governor’s House, into a private room, and the sheriff sent out by the Governor to see that the yard was clear; but it is too much to write what was done to some that were found standing there; but the body of them ran away. The Governor ordered the sheriff to take me home with him, and keep me at his house. Accordingly he did so, and gave me charge not to go out of his yard, but set nobody to look after me; he himself tended on the said court. About two days after, I was told that the sheriff told a friend of his that he was ordered, after the court was broke up and the people dispersed, to carry me up to Hartford prison and to see me shut up in some dark room, and that one Laborell, a French doctor, was to shave my head and give me purges to recover me of my madness. I hearing of this, desired the sheriff to give me a copy of the Mittimus, and after I told him what I heard privately, he owned the truth of it. The night following, I got up and got a neighbor to acquaint my son how matters were circumstanced, who brought £10 of money for me, and hired hands to row me over to Long Island, and pulled off his own shirt and gave me.
I got to Southold, on Long Island, in the night, and, early in the morning (it being the first day of the week), I went to a justice, to give him an account of the matter, having told him that I got away from under the sheriff’s hand at New London. He replied, “It is the Sabbath; it is not a day to discourse about such things.” So I returned to the tavern, and I suppose it was not above an hour before the constable came and set a guard over me, till about nine or ten of the clock the next day, and then took me where three justices were sitting at a table, with a written paper lying before them, who read a law to me that it was to be counted felony to break out of a constable’s hand. I then presented a copy of the Mittimus. They read it and desired to be in private. Being brought before them again, they told me they did not look at me to be such a person as I was there rendered, and so discharged me, without any charge.
I told them my design was to their Governor for protection; and that I expected Hue and Cries to pursue me, and requested of them to stop them if they could. They promised me they would, and afterwards I heard they did stop them. I got a man and horse to go with me to York, with all the speed I could, and the first house I went into was Governor Hunter’s, in the fort. I showed him the Mittimus and gave him an account of the matters. He told me he would not advise me to venture thither again, and that I should have safe protection. I told him I expected Hue and Cries to come after me. He told me I need not fear that at all, “For,” said he, “I have heard you differ in opinion from them, and they will be glad to be rid of you. It is evident you are no such man as they pretend.”
But, the next day, about ten of the clock, there came two printed Hue and Cries in at the tavern where I was, and I got them both, and went directly to the Governor, who was walking alone on the wall of the fort, and delivered one of them to him, who read it and then called to a little man walking on the pavement of the fort, saying, “Mr. Bickly, Mr. Bickly, come hither.” And when he was come he read it, and said he, “I grant protection to this man; he shall not be sent back upon this Hue and Cry,” and saith he, “I will write to the Governor of Connecticut,” and to me he said, “You are safe enough here; I will grant you protection.” I told him I did believe no answer would be returned him. He found my words true, and advised me to go for England and make my complaint, and told me there was a ship then going from Pennsylvania. A merchant being then present told me if I wanted money he would lend it to me, and if I should never be able to pay him he would never trouble me for it. All this kindness have I met with from strangers; but have thought it my wisdom to commit my cause to the all-seeing God.
And after I had continued in York about three months, I returned home, and, after I was recruited, with great difficulty I prosecuted the judges of said Inferior Court, for you had made it so difficult to summon them that none could give forth a summons but your General Court in such a case; but when I with great difficulty brought it to your Court of Chancery, you non-suited me and ordered me to pay all the charges and fined me £20. All which causes me to suspect your pretended care expressed in your printed Hue and Cries to cure me of my distraction. And here follows a copy for you to view:—
Whereas John Rogers, Sr., of New London, being committed to the custody of her Majesty’s Goal, in the County of New London, which is under my care, with special orders to keep him in some dark apartment thereof, until proper means be used for the cure of that distraction which he appears (to her Majesty’s Court of said County) to be under in a very high degree, hath, by the assistance of evil persons, made his escape out of the said custody, these are therefore to desire all persons to seize and secure the said Rogers and return him forthwith unto me, the subscriber, sheriff of the said County, and they shall be well satisfied for the trouble and charge they may be at therein.
Dated in New London, March 31, 1712.
John Prentis.
After I returned home, I went to the printer to know who it was that drew this advertisement up, and he showed me the copy, and I took it to be Governor Saltonstall’s own hand.
New London, 15th of the 7th month, 1721.
J. Rogers.
Matt. x, 26. “Fear them not therefore, for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known.”
We will say a few words in this place concerning the crime of falsely charging persons with insanity, whether from personal dislike or from motives of a pecuniary or other nature. Depravity can scarcely find a lower depth, or infamy wear a deeper brand. Even now such atrocities are not uncommon, and should be guarded against with the utmost vigilance. Nearly every one of long and large experience has been made cognizant of some such diabolism, where the laws have been too lax in reference to this matter. In the State of Connecticut, until recently, nothing was required but the certificate of a physician to secure the incarceration of any one in a lunatic asylum, with the superintendent’s consent. But by the law passed, May, 1889, the defect has been thoroughly remedied. It is also enacted, Section 23, that “Any person who wilfully conspires with any other person unlawfully to commit to any asylum any person who is not insane, and any person who shall wilfully and falsely certify to the insanity of such person, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the State Prison not exceeding five years, or both.”
To charge a sane person with insanity, and then devise methods for his cure which would tend to deprive a sane person of reason! Could the blade of enmity be drawn to a keener point?
CHAPTER VI.
It is with regret that we are compelled to make the following strictures upon “The Discourse Delivered on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the First Church of Christ, in New London, by Thos. P. Field, 1870.” Amiable as was its author, and highly esteemed, yet in this discourse, so far as it relates to the Rogerenes, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, showing how much easier it is to float on the surface, with the tide, than to dive deep and bring up gems from the bottom of the sea. We shall briefly quote from this discourse and make reply.
Mr. Field says: “During the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall, peculiar disturbances arose in the church,” referring to the sect called Rogerenes.
Since we have shown the falsity of many of the statements concerning the Rogerenes which are repeated by Mr. Field in this discourse, it is needless to take further notice of them here. But is it not a matter of surprise that Mr. Field should have spoken with seeming favor concerning the malicious suit brought by Mr. Saltonstall against John Rogers for slander? His words are: “On one occasion, when John Rogers circulated some false report about him, he brought an action in the county court for defamation and obtained a verdict of the jury in his behalf.”
He does not tell us the verdict was the enormous sum of £600, and that there was no legal basis for the action, even had the charge been true; neither does he state that this suit was brought against Rogers but a few months after release from his long confinement, of three years and eight months, in Hartford jail, where he had been placed at the instance of Mr. Saltonstall, on charge of blasphemy for words truly scriptural. Mr. Field’s reference to this suit shows how superficially he had looked into the subject.
We must also express surprise that the statement, so falsely and unblushingly made by Mr. Saltonstall, should be quoted and indorsed in Mr. Field’s discourse:—
There never was, for the twenty years that I have resided in this government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this people.
A note appended to Mr. Field’s discourse, may be presumed to contain his maturest thought, or rather absence of thought. “Lucus a non lucendo.” The note reads:—
Some who heard the discourse thought the Rogerenes were not sufficiently commended for what was good in them, and especially for their protest against the improper mingling of civil and religious affairs. It is the belief of the writer that there were a great many who entertained similar views with the Rogerenes on that subject, but who would not unite with them in their absurd mode of testifying against what they deemed erroneous.
“Belief of the writer!” Belief is of little consequence, unless based upon authority or knowledge; and the person who thrusts forward his simple belief, to command the assent of others, seems to proffer a valueless coin. But what if there were such among the people? They were not heard from; and Seneca says, “He who puts a good thought into my heart, puts a good word into my mouth, unless a fool has the keeping of it.”
There were a few, however, who did protest against the tyrannical treatment of the dissenters and in favor of religious freedom; but they were heavily fined and laid under the ban of the church, as the blind man who had received his sight was cast out of the temple by the Jews. From Miss Caulkin’s history, we quote the protest:—
While Rogers was in prison, an attack upon the government and colony appeared, signed by Richard Steer, Samuel Beebe, Jr., Jonathan and James Rogers, accusing them of persecution of dissenters, narrow principles, self-interest, spirit of domineering, and saying that to compel people to pay for a Presbyterian minister is against the laws of England, is rapine, robbery and oppression.
“A special court was held at New London, Jan. 25th, 1694-5, to consider this libellous paper. The subscribers were fined £5 each.”
Mr. Field goes on to say, “There can be no justification of their conduct in disturbing public assemblies as they did, which would not justify similar conduct at the present day.” So much has been said about their disturbing public assemblies, and to such varied notes has the tune been played, that the paucity of other arguments against the Rogerenes is thereby evinced. Fame, with its hundred tongues, has no doubt greatly exaggerated these offences, if such they were. There are some Bible commands that might seem to justify conduct like that above referred to; as, “Go cry in the ears of this people.” Fines, whippings, imprisonments, setting in stocks, etc., for no crime, but simply for non-conformity to the Congregational church, were grounds for their conduct which do not now exist. Did Mr. Field suppose that an intelligent audience would give credence to his above assertion? or had he taken lessons of the teacher of oratory who told his pupils to regard his hearers as “so many cabbage stumps”?
“No justification of their conduct” at that time “which would not justify similar conduct at the present day!”
There was an evil to be assailed then that has now passed away. The man who should enter a meeting-house now with a plea for religious liberty might properly be regarded as a lunatic. But, if the old abuses were revived, some Samson would again arise, to shake the pillars of tyranny.
Mr. Field closes his remarks by saying:—
There is no evidence that their testimony or their protestations had the slightest influence in correcting any of the errors of the times in respect to the relation of civil and ecclesiastical authority.
Had Mr. Field said that there was no evidence within his knowledge, we should have taken no notice of this statement. Confession of ignorance, like other confessions, may sometimes be good for the soul. But when he presumes to assert that a fact does not exist of which other people may be cognizant, he transcends the bounds of prudence.
Proof is abundant, that the Rogerenes and their descendants were foremost in advocating the severance of church from state and the equal rights of all to religious liberty. Their uniform testimony in Connecticut, for more than a century, in defence of true liberty of conscience, which awakened so much discussion throughout the State, could not have been without its enlightening influence.
But we will be more minute by mentioning some of the things which were said and done by Rogerenes,[14] and by those into whose minds their doctrines had been early and effectually instilled.
John Bolles, whom Miss Caulkins calls “a noted disciple of John Rogers,” wrote largely on the subject of religious liberty. In his work, entitled “True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to No Flesh,” this point is amply discussed. In his address to the Elders and Messengers of the Boston and Connecticut Colonies, concerning their Confessions of Faith, which were one and the same, he says:—
First, the Elders and Messengers of each Colony have recommended them to the Civil Government, and the Civil Government have taken them under their protection to defend them. And now God hath put it into my heart to reprove both Governments.
After showing by Scripture that the civil government is ordained of God to rule in temporal affairs, and not for the government of men’s consciences in matters of religion, he goes on to say:—
Thus it is sufficiently proved that God hath set up the Civil Government to rule in the Commonwealth, in temporal things; and as well proved that he hath not committed unto them the government of his church. I have proved that the Civil Government as they exercise their authority to rule only in temporal things are the ministers of God, and that God hath not committed to them the government of his Church, or to meddle in cases of conscience.—And now I speak to you, Elders and Messengers; as you have recommended your Confessions of Faith; and to you, Rulers of the Commonwealth, as you have acknowledged them, and established them by law, and defend them by the carnal sword; I speak, I say, to both parties, as you are in fellowship with each other in these things, and so proceed to prove that exercising yourselves in the affairs of conscience and matters of faith towards God, you do it under the authority of the dragon, or spirit of antichrist.
And you, Elders and Messengers (as you are called), as you stand to maintain and defend the said confessions, are not Elders and Messengers of the churches of Christ, but of antichrist. And you, Rulers of the Commonwealth of each Government, as you exercise yourselves as such in the affairs of conscience, and things relating to the worship of God, you do it not under Christ; but against Christ, under the power of antichrist, as by the Scripture hath been fully proved. In the form of church government in Boston, Confession, Chapter 17, par. 6, they say: “It is the duty of the Magistrate to take care of matters of religion, and improve his civil authority for observing the duties commanded in the first, as well as for observing the duties commanded in the second table.” And further say, “The end of the Magistrate’s office is not only the quiet and peaceable life of the subject in matters of righteousness and honesty, but also in matters of Godliness, yea, of all godliness.” The gospel was preached and received in opposition to the civil magistrates, as is abundantly recorded: And the encouragement Christ has given to his followers is by way of blessing under persecution: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnes’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” And for any people professing the Christian faith to set up a form of Godliness, and establish it by their human laws, and defend it by the authority of the Magistrate, is to exclude Christ from having authority over his Church, and themselves to be the supreme head thereof.
The book from which we quote was published about 1754. The following, from the same book, has reference to the persecutions in New England, of the Rogerenes and others:—
Now, Boston and Connecticut, let us briefly inquire into the doings of our forefathers[15] towards those that separated themselves from them for conscience’ sake, and testified against their form of godliness. To begin with Connecticut: they punished by setting in stocks, by fining, whipping, imprisoning and chaining in prison, and causing to set on the gallows with a halter about the neck, and prohibiting the keeping Quaker books, and that such books should be suppressed, as also putting fathers and mothers both in prison from their children, and then enclosing the prison with a boarded fence about ten foot high, with spikes above, points upwards, and a gate kept under lock and key to prevent any communication of friends or relations with the prisoners, or communicating anything necessary for their support; but must go near half a mile to the prison keeper to have the gate opened.
At New Haven, a stranger, named Humphrey Norton, being put ashore, not of his own seeking, was put in prison and chained to a post, and kept night and day for the space of twenty days, with great weights of iron, without fire or candle, in the winter season, and not any suffered to come to visit him; and after this brought before their court, and there was their priest, John Davenport, to whom said Norton endeavored to make reply, but was prevented by having a key tied athwart his mouth, till the priest had done; then, said Norton was had again to prison, and there chained ten days, and then sentenced to be severely whipped, and to be burned in the hand with the letter H, for heresy, who, my author says, was convicted of none; and to be sent out of the Colony, and not to return upon pain of the utmost penalty they could inflict by law. And the drum was beat, and the people gathered, and he was fetched and stripped to the waist, and whipped thirty-six cruel stripes and burned in the hand very deep with a red-hot iron, as aforesaid, and then had to prison again and tendered his liberty upon paying his fine and fees.—See George Bishop: “New England Judged,” page 203, 4.
These and other like things were done in Connecticut.
Now let us hear what was done in Boston Government, as it is to be seen in the title-page of said Bishop’s history, touching the sufferings of the people called Quakers: “A brief relation,” saith he, “of the suffering of the people called Quakers in those parts of America, from the beginning of the fifth month, 1656, the time of their first arrival at Boston from England, to the latter end of the tenth month, 1660, wherein the cruel whippings and scourgings, bonds and imprisonments, beatings and chainings, starvings and huntings, fines and confiscation of estates, burning in the hand and cutting off ears, orders of sale for bond-men and bond-women, banishment upon pain of death, and putting to death of those people are shortly touched, with a relation of the manner, and some of the most material proceedings, and a judgment thereupon.” They also burned their books by the common executioners (see Daniel Neal’s “History of New England,” Vol. I., page 292). They also impoverished them by compelling them to take the oath of fidelity, which they scrupled for conscience’ sake, and for their refusing of which they were fined £5 each or depart the Colony; but they, not departing, and under the same scruple, came under the penalty of another £5; and so from time to time, and many other fines were imposed on them, as for meeting by themselves. (See said History, page 320.)
And in said book is contained a brief relation of the barbarous cruelties, persecutions and massacres upon the Protestants in foreign parts by the Papists, etc. And now I return to Boston and Connecticut, with reference to what was said touching the doings of our forefathers; they not being repented, nor called in question, but a persisting in acts of force upon conscience in some measure to this day. But it is the same dragon, and same persecuting spirit that required the worshipping of idols, and persecuted the primitive church, that now professes himself to be a Christian, and furnishes himself with college-learned ministers, nourished up in pride through idleness and voluptuous living; and these are his ministers; and they are the same set of men that Christ thanked God that he had hid the mysteries of the kingdom of God from, Matt. xi, 25. And he, the dragon, assures the rulers of the commonwealth that God hath set them to do justice among men, and to take under their care the government of the church also.
In 1754, I went to the General Court at Hartford, and also to the General Court at Boston, considering their Confessions were both one, and that both Governments lie under the same reproof,—and I have published three treatises already, touching these things; but there has been no answer made to any, and this is the fourth; after so much proof, I think it may truly be said of them, as in Rev. ii, 2, “And thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.”
In a word, to rule the church by the power of the magistrate is to destroy the peace of both church, families and commonwealths. But, on the contrary, Christ is said to be the Prince of Peace. Isaiah ix, 6. And all that walk in His spirit follow His example, to live peaceably towards all men, as also towards the Commonwealth, as he did, for peace’ sake, rather than to offend.
Perhaps we cannot give a better idea of the extent and versatility of Mr. Bolle’s efforts in this direction, which extended over a long period, than by transcribing some portion of what is said of him by his biographer (in “Bolles Genealogy”):—