1695.

In May, at a special session of the Superior Court, at Hartford, John Rogers is tried upon the following charges:—

The evidence against the prisoner in regard to these matters is given by Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, Daniel Wetherell and John Christophers, and by “an old man in New London prison,” who testifies that he heard John Rogers say “that he was in Christ and just and holy, and ministers would carry people to the devil.” Stated in record that John Rogers owned to saying he was in Christ, but denied the rest of the statement by the old man. He also denied that he said Christ drove the wheelbarrow into the church.

Messrs. Saltonstall, Christophers and Wetherell testify that (“at Mr. Thomas Young’s”) they saw John Rogers lay his hand on his breast, and heard him say: “This is the humane body of Christ;” they also heard him say in a “laughing,” or “as they thought in a flouting way,” “brother Jesus and brother Paul.” Owned in court by John Rogers “that he said his body was Christ’s” (note this exact agreement with his son’s statement, Part I, Chapter II), also that he used the term brother in regard to Christ and Paul.

The opinions of four ministers are taken as to the blasphemous nature of said expressions. The names of these ministers are “Samuel Stow, Moses Noyes, Timothy Woodbridge and Caleb Watson.” They judge that the expression, “This is the humane body of Christ,” has a high blasphemous reflection. The saying “brother Jesus is also a presumptuous expression, in the manner of his saying it” (viz., as rendered by Gurdon Saltonstall). “The saying that Christ drove the wheelbarrow is an impious belying of Christ” (regardless of the prisoner’s denial of having made any such statement). “The reflections on our worship are a slanderous charge against the generation of the righteous, and heretical and impious.”^[78] They also “apprehend that in every one of the expressions evidenced against him there is a high and abominable profanation of the name of Christ.”

Verdict, guilty. Sentence:—

Here is set forth a term of imprisonment which can be ended only by some change of policy on the part of the authorities; since it is well known by those who have this matter in charge that John Rogers never gives such security or bonds.

By this time, excitement and sympathy on the part of friends, followers and relatives of the prisoner are undoubtedly at their height, and it is probable that these people give somewhat free expression to their indignation, especially regarding the charge of blasphemy and the consequent ignominious punishment. Neither they nor the prisoner expected other than severe measures regarding the wheelbarrow affair, which was a very bold stroke of countermove in an extraordinary emergency.

In June, close following the trial and punishment inflicted upon John Rogers at Hartford, the New London meeting-house burns to the ground.

But for the excitement among the dissenters, this disaster might be attributed to some other cause; but under the circumstances it is a convenient and plausible charge to lay at their door. About the same time, also, Stonington meeting-house is desecrated by “daubing it with filth.”

Bathsheba Fox, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright (the Indian servant before referred to) are arraigned before the Superior Court at Hartford, on suspicion of being “concerned in” both of the above occurrences. The only evidence against John, Jr., and his aunt Bathsheba is of a circumstantial character, to the effect that some conversation transpired previous to these occurrences which it is considered may have instigated the burning and desecration on the part of others, notably of William Wright. The latter is convicted of defiling the Stonington meeting-house.^[79]

It is probable that, in the height of their excitement over the treatment John Rogers received at Hartford, Bathsheba, John, Jr., and others expressed great indignation against Mr. Saltonstall and the New London church generally. Yet the burning of the meeting-house was probably as much a surprise to them as to anyone, and certainly as great a financial disaster; since upon them more than upon others, by exorbitant seizure of property, must fall the expense of a new edifice. This latter fact, as well as certainty that suspicion and apprehension must surely fall in their quarter, would naturally deter them from any such undertaking. Also, retaliatory measures of this description are contrary to the principles of this sect.^[80]

At this same Superior Court session, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright are charged with having recently assisted in the escape from the Hartford prison of a man, “Matthews,” who was condemned to death.^[81] William Wright is charged with assisting Matthews to escape from prison, and John Rogers, Jr., is accused of conveying him out of the colony. He appears to have been soon recaptured, and is again in prison at the time these charges are preferred. This is not the only instance in which John Rogers, Jr., is found running great risk and displaying great courage in a cause which he deems right before God, however criminal in the judgment of men.

For assisting in this escape, William Wright is to pay half the charges incurred in recapturing Matthews. For “abusing” Stonington meeting-house, for not acknowledging to have heard alleged conversations among the Rogerses and their confederates in regard to the burning of New London meeting-house, and for having made his escape from justice (by which he appears to have recently escaped from jail^[82]), he is to be “sorely whipped” and returned to Hartford prison.

John Rogers, Jr., for being “conspicuously guilty of consuming New London meeting house” (although no slightest evidence of such guilt is recorded), “for having been in company with some who held a discourse of burning said meeting house” (although no such discourse has been proven), and “that he did encourage the Indian to fly far enough” (this appears to refer to William Wright’s “escape from justice”), and “for being active in conveying Matthews out of the colony,” is placed under bond for trial. It is shown that his uncle, Samuel Rogers, has appeared and given bail for him. (There is no after record to show that such trial ever took place, and no slightest mention of any further proceeding in the matter.) This act of Samuel Rogers is one of the frequent evidences of cordial friendship between John, Jr., and his uncle.

Bathsheba, for “devising and promoting” the firing of the meeting-house, and the “defiling” of that at Stonington, is to pay a fine of £10 or be severely whipped. This fine is probably paid by Samuel Rogers. It certainly would not be paid by her. The sole evidence against John, Jr., and Bathsheba is in the character of vague rumors of indignant discourse relating to the recent moves against John Rogers, Sr. No proof of any complicity is recorded.

John, Jr., and Bathsheba are freed, but William Wright remains in Hartford jail with his master (and will continue there for three years to come), not for burning the meeting-house, which is not proven against him, nor for defiling that at Stonington (on suspicion of which he has already been punished with the stripes); not (save in part) for the charges incurred by the rescue of Matthews, but (as will be evident three years later) for his averred determination not to submit to the law regarding servile labor on the first day of the week.

In the meantime, Mr. Saltonstall and his friends, who have recently been congratulating themselves on the success of their scheme for keeping John Rogers in Hartford jail, are gravely contemplating the ashes of their meeting-house and the remnants of its new bell, with still further uneasiness in regard to results like enough to ensue from added distrainments of the nonconformists towards the building of another edifice.

Nor is this all. There are prominent members of this very church who have so long been witnesses of wrongs and provocations on the part of the authorities towards the conscientious non-conformists, and have seen these wrongs and provocations so increased of late, that they are willing to join with representatives of those people in an open remonstrance.

In October of this year, occurs the terrible and mysterious public scourging of John Rogers at Hartford, which is best given in his own words and those of his son (see Part I, Chapters II and III), of which act, or cause for it, no slightest mention is to be found on court records. All this is but the beginning of vengeance for his continued refusal to bind himself to what the court terms “good behavior.” Close following any such bonds, would be the institution of such procedures against the Rogerenes as would tend to annihilate their denomination. But so long as the dreaded countermove is to be looked for, in times of extremity, some degree of caution must be exercised, even by the rulers of Connecticut.

The “Remonstrance,” to which reference has been made, appears in January of this year, and is issued by Capt. James Rogers, Richard Steer, Samuel Beebe and Jonathan Rogers. Appended to it are many names. Briefly stated, it is charged that the Congregational church have been so accustomed to persecute those that dissent from them “that they cannot forbear their old trade;” that the design of the Act of Parliament for liberty to Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers and Baptists, to worship according to the dictates of conscience

(Here is proof of recent unusual procedures by the town magistrates, not only against the Rogerenes, but in regard to the quiet dissenters on the Great Neck and elsewhere. This persecution has been going on out of sight of the general public, by action of the town authorities, since no County Court record appears. Undoubtedly it was this revival of indignities that stirred John Rogers to his bold move.)

The “emitters” of this paper are placed under bonds for appearance at the County Court, where they are fined £5 each “for defamation of their Majesties,” viz.: “the Gov. of Conn. and others in authority,” as well as “breach of His Majesty’s peace and disquietude of his liege people.”

The “emitters” appeal to the Superior Court, not because they expect any favor from that quarter, but it keeps the cause before that public in whose sense of justice is all their hope.

1697.

Before May of this year, and while another trial of the case regarding the claim of Joseph to land awarded Jonathan is still in progress, occurs the death of Joseph Rogers. It is not unlikely that had both brothers lived they would have come to an amicable adjustment of the difficulty; since the evident perplexity of those charged with examination into the case, indicates reasonable arguments upon either side, and thus a matter well fitted for compromise.

Our glimpses of Joseph Rogers are meagre. He and his wife appear not to have joined the Newport church, but were evidently members of the church of which John Rogers was pastor. (We have seen the wife’s baptism, Chapter II.) Yet, of late years, Joseph has been scarcely more noticeable than Jonathan, as regards arraignment for labor on the first day of the week, which, as in case of the latter, appears to prove that his labor was not of an ostentatious character. That he was steady, thrifty, industrious and enterprising is very evident. He added largely, by purchase, to the lands given him by his father, and had become proprietor of a saw-mill and corn-mill at Lyme. He died intestate, and his widow, Sarah, administered on his estate. Sarah Rogers now carries forward the suit in which her husband was engaged. The court appears not unfavorable to her presentation of the case; but, on account of a neglect on her part in regard to certain technicalities, the trial comes to a pause, and, through lack of further action on her part, the case is again decided in favor of Jonathan.

In March, 1697, complaint is made to the Governor and Council that John Rogers and William Wright, who were “to be kept close prisoners,” are frequently permitted to walk at liberty, and the complainants (names not stated) declare their extreme dissatisfaction with the jailer and any that connive with him in this matter. It is ordered that said persons be hereafter kept close prisoners, and that the jailer or others who disobey this order be dealt with according to law. Has John Rogers made such friends with the prejudiced and cruel jailer of 1694? Even so (see Part I., Chapter IV., for testimony of Thomas Hancox, and Part I, Chapter II., for scourging of John Rogers at Hartford and part of same jailer in this abuse).

In 1697, the General Court appoint a committee to revise the laws of the colony and certain “reverent elders” to advise the persons chosen in this affair,^[83] and also “to advise this court in what manner they ought to bear testimony against the irregular actions of John Rogers in printing and publishing a book reputed scandalous and heretical.”

John Rogers, Jr., is now twenty-three years of age, a young man of brilliant parts and daring courage. Since he is the printer and circulator of this book, he is probably also its author. In this same month of May, “John Rogers, Jr.,” is “bound in a bond of £40” “to appear at court” (Superior) “to answer what may be objected against him for bringing a printed book or pamphlet into this colony which was not licensed by authority, and for selling the same up and down the colony, as also for other misdemeanors”—the nature of the latter not indicated. No complaint being presented against him, he is dismissed.

[Could a copy of this pamphlet be found, great light might be thrown upon this stormy period, by revelation of the full circumstances leading up to the desperate entry of John Rogers into the meeting-house in 1694, the plot of Mr. Saltonstall and the “Remonstrance in Behalf of Peaceable Dissenters.”

That this book, sold “up and down the colony” by John Rogers, Jr., was for the enlightenment of the people at large regarding the cause, and lack of cause, for the long imprisonment and cruel treatment of his father, with representation of the case for the nonconformists, can scarcely be doubted. We can picture this talented and manly youth going from place to place, eagerly seeking and finding those who will listen to his eloquent appeal to buy and read this tale of wrong and woe, in the almost single-handed struggle for religious liberty in Connecticut.]

Does the little book create so much sympathy “up and down the colony,” that it is no longer wise to keep John Rogers incarcerated, or are his ecclesiastical enemies at last sated by his nearly four years of close imprisonment in Hartford jail? However this may be, at the October session of the Superior Court, 1697, John Rogers is brought from prison and “set at liberty in open court,” “in expectation that he will behave himself civilly and peaceably in the future.” The promise of good behavior is not required of him, as formerly, but in its place the “in expectation,” etc., which is not their expectation at all, unless with the proviso that they themselves observe due caution in the handling of him and his followers. They are apparently mindful of public opinion and of the little book.

William Wright is also brought from prison to this court. He stands here, in the presence of this master, who has just been set at liberty, awaiting his own turn to be freed. For more than three years, these men have been comrades in Hartford prison. They dwelt together at the home of James Rogers, Sr., the Indian a servant of the latter, and, since his death, servant of the executor, John Rogers. The master has been kind and trustful, the servant faithful to a remarkable extent. But for signal proof of heroic allegiance to this nonconformist, he had not been in prison at all.

The master is waiting that his servant may go with him from the court-room as a free man. But no! As the ceremony proceeds, the Indian is offered his freedom only on condition that he will promise to “behave himself civilly and peaceably in future,” which would include refraining from servile work upon the first day of the week. They are demanding promises of the despised red man that they dare not exact of the white man, who has no lack of money or of friends.

Well may the warm blood of this master spring crimson to cheek and brow. But not alone the master, the servant himself. They would compel him to desert his master! The blood of the Indian is a match for that of the Saxon.

William Wright, standing in swarthy dignity before this worshipful court, declines his freedom on terms not only unjust to himself, but demanding infidelity to that master and that cause for which he has been so ready to venture and to suffer. He declares before this assembly that he will not submit to the law against servile labor on the first day of the week, that said law “is a human invention,” and that he will work upon the first day of the week so long as he lives.

For this admirable fidelity to his religion and his friends, he is sentenced to be returned to prison “until there shall be opportunity to send him out of the colony on some vessel, as a dangerous disturber of the peace,” and in case of his return he shall be whipped and again transported.

The wonder is that John Rogers held his peace until the full completion of this sentence. Had an outburst of indignation and condemnation of this unjust sentence not been forthcoming, as this faithful servant was being returned to the close imprisonment of Hartford jail, then might it be said that John Rogers could, for fear or favor, stand silent in the presence of injustice. For such an outburst as this^[84] John Rogers is immediately fined £5. This “contempt of court” is briefly rendered on the records as follows:—

Since he never pays such fines (except through execution upon his property) he is probably returned to prison with his faithful servant, there to continue until this fine shall be cancelled.

Before the close of this year, Jonathan Rogers is accidentally drowned in Long Island Sound. Our glimpses of this youngest son of James Rogers have been slight and infrequent. That he possessed firmness and independence, is shown by his resolution to continue fully within the Newport church. The fact that this made no break—other than upon religious points—with his Rogerene relatives reveals both tact and an amiable and winning personality. In his inventory are “cooper’s tools,” “carpenter’s tools” and “smith’s tools,” indicating an enterprising man concerned in several occupations, according to the fashion of his time.

1698.

When John Rogers is finally released from prison, the rancor with which he is still pursued by Mr. Saltonstall, with intent to weaken his financial power to continue his bold stand, is proven by the preposterous suit instituted against him almost immediately (Superior Court) for alleged defamation, in saying that he (Saltonstall) agreed to hold a public argument with him (Rogers) on certain points of scripture, which agreement said Saltonstall failed to fulfil.^[85] (This case has been fully presented in Part I., Chapter VI.)

(Motive for any such alleged statement, unless true, being lacking, and a pamphlet being published not long after by John Rogers, giving a detailed account of the whole cause and proceeding, by which the exorbitant sum of £600 recovery for libel, with costs of court, was levied upon him, it is presumable that enmity and court influence were at the bottom of this suit, if not clearly on the surface. Ecclesiastical power was dominant at this time in all the courts. Ever back of Mr. Saltonstall stood this power, as intent as himself upon the overthrow of this daring nonconformist. Could a copy of the pamphlet by John Rogers,^[86] giving details of that remarkable suit, be found, much light would doubtless be cast upon this period in the history of the Rogerenes.)

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

John Rogers has changed his home from the Great Neck to Mamacock farm, North Parish. His sister Bathsheba has also removed to the North Parish, to a place called Fox’s Mills, from the mills owned and carried on by her husband, Samuel Fox.

1698.

The long and close imprisonment of John Rogers in Hartford, attended as it was with a bitter sense of wrong, would seem sufficient to undermine the strongest constitution. To this was added anxiety regarding home affairs, including charge of his father’s estate and the care of his mother, which were devolving wholly upon his sister Bathsheba. His mother’s death close following his release, and business neglected during the past four years, must have borne hard on his enfeebled system, to say nothing of annoyance and difficulty on account of Mr. Saltonstall’s recovery of the £600. Although he has gathered his family (son and servants) about him, at Mamacock farm, and resumed the leadership of his Society, he can scarcely as yet be the man he was four years ago.

It must be sweet to breathe again the open air of freedom, and such air as blows over Mamacock; purest breezes from river and from sea, fragrant with the breath of piney woods, of pastures filled with flowers and herbs, and of fields of new-mown hay, mingled with the wholesome odor of seaweed cast by the tide upon Mamacock shore.

Not far from the house, towards the river, in a broad hollow in the greensward, bordered on the north by a wooded cliff and commanding a view of the river and craggy Mamacock peninsula, is a clear, running stream and pool of spring water. Here yet (1698) the Indians come as of old, with free leave of the owner, to eat clams, as also on Mamacock peninsula, at both of which places the powdered white shells in the soil will verify the tradition for more than two hundred years to come. In this river are fish to tempt the palate of an epicure, and trout abound in the neighboring streams. A strong-built, white-sailed boat is a part of this lovely scene, and such a boat will still be found here for many years to come. (See “Hempstead Diary” for mention of boat.)

1699.

If after the perilous trials, hardships and irritations of the past four years, this man has a mind to enjoy life, as it comes to him at Mamacock, it is not strange.

Nor is it strange that, among his house servants, he soon particularly notices a young woman, lately arrived from the old country, whose services he has bought for so long as will reimburse him for payment of her passage. Perhaps the chief cause of his interest is in the fact that she herself has taken a liking to the half-saddened man who is her master. Surely he who could so attach to himself a native Indian like William Wright, has traits to win even the favor of a young woman. He is evidently genial and indulgent with his servants, rather than haughty and censorious.

For twenty-five years he has been a widower, except that the grave has not covered the wife of his youth. Through all these years, the bitterest of his calumniators have not raised so much as a whisper questioning his perfect fidelity to Elizabeth, who, since the divorce, has been the wife of two other men and yet ever by this man has been considered as rightfully his own. Such being the case, well may his son wonder that he is becoming interested in this young housemaid, Mary Ransford, even to showing some marked attentions, which she receives with favor. She is a comely young woman, no doubt, as well as lively and spirited. Her master will not object to her having a mind of her own, especially when she displays due indignation regarding the wholesale method of gathering the minister’s and church rates. But when she goes so far as to “threaten”^[88] to pour scalding water on the head of the collector of rates, as he appears at the front door upon that ever fruitless errand, this master must give her a little lesson in the doctrine of non-resistance, although his eyes may twinkle with covert humor at her zeal. As for the rates, they must be taken out of the pasture.

Evidently this attractive girl, Mary, is willing to assent to anything this indulgent master believes to be right, taking as kindly to his doctrines as to himself. A man of soundest constitution, as proven from first to last, and of great recuperative energy, he is not old at fifty-two, despite imprisonments, stripes and ceaseless confiscations.

It soon becomes plain to John the younger that this is no ordinary partiality for an attractive and devoted maid, but that his father will ask this young woman to become his wife. For the first time, there is a marked difference of opinion between father and son. Mary is perfectly willing to pledge herself to this man, even under the conditions desired. As for him, why should he longer remain single, seeing there is no possible hope of reclaiming the wife whom he still tenderly loves. There are arguments enough upon the other side. John, Jr., presents them very forcibly, and especially in regard to the inconsistency of putting any woman in his mother’s place, so long as his father continues to declare that Elizabeth is still, in reality, his wife.

To this latter and chief argument, the father replies that he shall not put Mary in his first wife’s place, since that marriage has never been annulled, by any law of God or of man. Did not God, in the olden times, allow two kinds of wives, both truly wives, yet one higher than the other? Under the singular circumstances of this case, being still bound to Elizabeth by the law of God, yet separated from her by the will of men, he will marry Mary, yet not as he married Elizabeth Griswold. He will openly and honorably marry her, yet put no woman in the place of his first wife. To this Mary agrees.

It is but another outcome of this man’s character. He fears God and God alone. He takes very little thought as to what man may think or do concerning him. Yet not by a hair’s breadth will he, if he knows it, transgress any scriptural law. (In his after treatise “On Divorce,” how well can be read between the lines the meditations and conclusions of this period, and chiefly the fact that, in deciding upon a second marriage, he in no wise admitted that Elizabeth Griswold was not still his wife, although so held from him that he might lawfully take another, although under the circumstances a lesser, wife.^[89])

Oppose this unpropitious plan as he may, the son, whose influence has hitherto been paramount, cannot prevail to weaken his father’s resolution. It is the old and frequent glamour that has bound men and women in a spell from the beginning, making them blind to what others see, and causing them to see that to which others are blind, in the object of their choice. The fact that Mary returns John, Jr.’s, pronounced opposition to the marriage with consequent aversion to the spirited youth, does not necessarily injure her standing with the father. There is but one person for whom favoritism on her part is absolutely necessary. As is usual in such cases, the matter goes on, despite all opposition. He who has so often borne to his mother the tale of his father’s unfaltering fidelity, must now acquaint her with this sudden engagement. To the young, the new loves of older people are foolishness. But, in this case, there is still another reason for John, Jr.’s, opposition to this mid-life romance; it is sadly interfering with a very natural intention of his own.

With his usual habit of unhesitatingly executing a plan as soon as it is fully determined upon, John Rogers improves the opportunity offered by the session of the County Court in New London, to present himself with Mary before that assembly (June 6), where they take each other, in the sight and hearing of all, as husband and wife; he, furthermore, stating his reason for marrying her outside the form prescribed by the colony, to which form he declares he attaches no value, since it was not sufficient to secure his first wife to him, although no valid cause was presented for the annulment of that approved ceremony. To fully make this a well-authenticated marriage, he gallantly escorts Mary to the house of the Governor (Mr. Winthrop) and informs him that he has taken this young woman for his wife. The governor politely wishes him much joy.^[90]

Much as this second marriage might be lamented, from several points of view, and much trouble as it brought upon both Mary and John, Jr., by their irreconcilable disagreement, to say nothing of the perplexities and sorrows which it inflicted upon John Rogers himself, it is scarcely to be regretted by his biographer; since it brings into bold prominence a striking, and wonderfully rare, characteristic of this remarkable man, viz.: the most reverent and careful deference to every known law of God, combined with total indifference to any law of man not perfectly agreeing with the laws of God.^[91] Evidently, what the most august assembly of men that could be gathered, or the most lofty earthly potentate, might think, say or do, would to him be lighter than a feather, if such thought, speech or act did not accord with the divine laws.

By some agreement the house at Mamacock, cattle on the place, and other farm property, are under the joint ownership of John, Sr., and John, Jr.; the one has as much right to the house and the farm stock as the other. It now appears that the junior partner has himself been intending to furnish a mistress for the house at Mamacock. In January, 1700, seven months after the marriage of his father, he brings home his bride and is forced to place her in the awkward position of one of two mistresses. The young woman who now enters upon this highly romantic and gravely dramatic scene is one with whom John Rogers, Sr., can find no fault, being none other than his niece, Bathsheba, daughter of his faithful and beloved sister of the same name.

In spite of the difficulties sure to ensue, John, Sr., cannot but welcome this favorite niece to Mamacock. Not so with Mary. Whatever estimable and attractive qualities the latter may possess, here is a situation calculated to prove whether or not she is capable of the amount of passion and jealousy that has so often transformed a usually sensible and agreeable woman into the semblance of a Jezebel. The birth of a son to Mary, at this trying period, does not better the situation. Even so courageous a man as John Rogers might well stand appalled at the probable consequences of this venturesome marriage. When he brought Mary home and directed his servants to obey her as their mistress,^[92] he in no wise calculated upon her being thus, even partially, set aside. He stands manfully by her, as best he may, though with the evident intention that she shall refrain from any abuse of his son’s rights in the case.

Although Mary is fined 40s. by the County Court in June, for the birth of her child, it is not declared illegitimate by the usual form, the authorities being nonplussed by the fact she and John Rogers so publicly took each other as husband and wife. She is not called upon to declare who is the child’s father, nor is the latter charged with its maintenance, as in cases of illegitimacy. Evidently, John Rogers did not expect any court action, in the case of so public a ceremony. He declines to pay a fine so disgraceful to his wife and child, and appeals to the Superior Court. The court decides that, since the fine was not accompanied by other due forms of law, it is invalid, but refers the matter to the future consideration of the County Court, which results in no further action in regard to this child.

Mary is also summoned before this same June court and fined 10s., “for her wicked and notorious language to John Rogers, Jr.,” evidently on complaint of the latter. In this crisis, her husband presents himself at the court, partly in her defense and partly in that of his son. He calls attention to a mark upon her face, which he says she declares to have been inflicted by the hand of his son John, during his own absence from home, and that upon this account “she has become so enraged as to threaten the life of somebody, as she has done before from time to time,” and he is “fearful that if God or man do not prevent it,”^[93] serious consequences may follow. John, Jr., is fined 10s. on this evidence of his father. Although the injury to Mary, as indicated by the fine, is nothing serious as a wound, yet it proves how far the young man lost self-control in this instance. John Rogers, Sr., objects to the fine imposed upon Mary under these circumstances, but his statement before the court is evidently intended not only as a defense of his son, but as a check upon herself.

[There is the evidence of a no more partial witness than Peter Pratt that John Rogers never complained, outside his own home, of the domestic troubles resulting from this marriage.^[94] In the above instance, he was compelled, by the action of his son, to testify, both in Mary’s defense and in excuse of his son. Upon this court record and affidavit is founded Miss Caulkin’s statement that appeal was made to the court to “quell domestic broils” arising from this marriage. It is to the advantage of this history that the family affairs of John Rogers were in this instance forced before the public, since we may observe the manner in which the father and husband endeavors to secure an impartial administration of justice, and immunity of any one from harm.]

However this marriage and its consequences may figure upon the printed page of a less primitive period, they appear not to lessen respect for this remarkable man in the eyes of his followers, although these followers are persons of the highest moral character. His blameless life as a single man for the last twenty-five years, and his avowed reasons for taking another wife in the manner he has, are known to all. Moreover, they find no word of God in condemnation.

In this year, John Rogers publishes, in pamphlet form, an account of the dispute agreed upon between himself and Mr. Saltonstall, telling the particulars of that great extortion. (Would that a copy of this might yet come to the light!)

1702.

In September, 1702, the County Court have a good opportunity to exercise the “after consideration” recommended by the Superior Court in 1700, which they improve by dealing with Mary, after the birth of her second child, exactly as they are accustomed to deal with an unmarried woman. Her presentment is in exactly the same wording, a part of which calls upon her to declare under oath, before the court, the name of the father of her child. To prevent their carrying out this form, John Rogers is there in court, with his six-months-old girl baby in his arms, to save it from this disgrace. He has given Mary directions how to proceed, in order to supplement his plan of breaking up the intended procedure. If she refuse to take the oath and to declare John Rogers to be the father of her child, the court will be baffled.^[95]

Being ordered to take the oath, she is silent, as her husband has enjoined, while he declares to the court that this her child in his arms is his own. The court knows, as well as the man before them, that his first marriage has not been annulled for any legal cause; that he had reason to refuse a repetition of the ceremony. But while those who make and administer laws may be allowed to ignore them with impunity, lesser people must abide by them; least of all must this man escape, who has imperilled the ecclesiasticism of the land. They threaten Mary with stripes, if she continuecontinue her refusal to take the oath. She looks from the judge to the man who stands, so earnest and anxious, with the babe in his arms, bidding her not to take the oath, declaring that, if she obey him, he will shield her from harm. She knows he will do all that he can to protect her; but she has seen marks of the stripes upon his own back; she knows how he has sat for hours in the stocks, and been held for weary years in prison. Can he rescue her from the stripes?

He sees her yielding and pleads with her, pleads that she will save their child from this dishonor. The court sternly repeats the threat. Again he promises to defend her, in case she will obey him; but declares that, if she yield, branding his child as base-born, herself as common, and himself a villain, he needs must hesitate, hereafter, to own her as his wife.

She sees the court will not be trifled with. She knows that John Rogers uses no idle words. Yet will it not be safer to brave his displeasure than that of the court? She takes the oath, and declares John Rogers to be the father of her child. The cloud grows dark upon the father’s face. He folds his branded child against his heart and goes his way. All this he risked to hold his first love first, in seeming as in truth; has risked and lost.

The court proceeds as usual in cases of illegitimacy, pronouncing John Rogers the father of the child, and ordering that he pay 2s. 6d. per week towards its maintenance, until it is four years of age. Mary is allowed until the end of the following month to pay the usual fine of 40s., in case of non-payment of which she shall receive ten stripes on the naked body. In the meantime, she is to be detained in prison. Will John Rogers own his child to be illegitimate by paying this fine? By no means.

1703.

To now take Mary back (even if so allowed by the authorities)^[96] would be to brand any other children in the same manner. To marry her by the prescribed form would be to acknowledge these two children to be illegitimate. Yet there is one thing that can be done, and must be done speedily. Mary must be rescued from the prison and thus saved from the lash. There are but two in all this region who will risk an attempt like that. They are John Rogers and his son. Mary escapes to Block Island.

After a safe period has elapsed, Mary is returned from Block Island to New London. Her children are placed with her, somewhere in the town, to give the more effect to her Petition to the General Court, which is presented early in May. It is a long and pathetic document (still to be seen in “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in the State Library, at Hartford), narrating the manner of her marriage to John Rogers; his taking her home and “ordering his servants to be conformable and obedient” to her; the trouble they had, “especially myself,” on account of the displeasure of John, Jr., at the marriage; a description of her presentment at court for her second child; her compliance with the court’s importunity, although her husband stood there “with it in his arms,” and how the result had made their children “base-born,” by which her “husband” says he is “grossly abused;” since “he took me in his heart and declared me so to be his wife before the world, and so owned by all the neighbors.” She beseeches that the sentence of the court be annulled; so that, “we may live together as husband and wife lawful and orderly,” “that the blessing of God be upon us, and your Honor, for making peace and reconciliation between us, may have an everlasting reward.” Dated in “New London, May 12, 1703.”

The court takes no notice of this appeal. Mary is returned to Block Island and the children to Mamacock. Proof will appear, however, that she is not forgotten nor neglected. Even after her marriage to another man, and years after this hopeless separation, she will say nothing but good of him who first called her his wife and acted faithfully towards her a husband’s part.

[Miss Caulkins states that, some months before this period, John Rogers “made an almost insane attempt” to regain his former wife Elizabeth, wife of Matthew Beckwith. This statement is founded upon a writ against John Rogers on complaint of Matthew Beckwith (Jan. 1702-3), accusing John Rogers of laying hands on Elizabeth, declaring her to be his wife and that he would have her in spite of Matthew Beckwith. The historian should ever look below the mere face of things. For more than twenty-five years, John Rogers has known that Elizabeth, married or unmarried, would not return to him, pledged as he was to his chosen cause. He is, at this particular date, not yet fully separated from Mary, but holding himself ready to take her back, in case a petition to the General Court should by any possibility result favorably. This and another complaint of Matthew Beckwith—the latter in June, 1703—to the effect that he was “afraid of his life of John Rogers”^[97] indicate some dramatic meeting between John Rogers and “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” in the presence of Matthew Beckwith, the incidents attendant upon which have displeased the latter and led him to resolve that John Rogers shall be publicly punished for assuming to express any ownership in his, Matthew Beckwith’s, wife.

Any meeting between John Rogers and Elizabeth Griswold could not fail of being dramatic. What exact circumstances were here involved is unknown; what attitude was taken by the woman, when these two men were at the same time in her presence, it is impossible to determine. But it is in no way derogatory to the character of John Rogers, that in meeting this wife of his youth, he gives striking proof of his undying affection. Ignoring her marriage to the man before him, forgetful, for the time being, even of Mary, blind to all save the woman he loves above all, he lays his hand upon Elizabeth, and says she is, and shall be, his. Under such circumstances, Matthew Beckwith takes his revenge in legal proceedings. When summoned before the court, John Rogers defends his right to say that Matthew Beckwith’s wife—so-called—is still his own, knowing full well the court will fine him for contempt, which process follows (County Court Record).]

John Rogers is fifty-five years of age at this date, and Matthew Beckwith sixty-six. Elizabeth is about fifty.

In this year, a fine of 10s. is imposed upon Samuel Beebe (Seventh Day Baptist) for ploughing on the first day of the week (County Court Record). Without doubt the Rogerenes (Seventh Day Baptists also) have done the same thing. At this period John Rogers may do whatever he pleases of this sort on the first day of the week.^[98] Nearly four years of imprisonment in Hartford jail, the little book “sold up and down” the colony, and many a tale narrated of his bravery and sufferings in the cause of religious liberty, have won for him such popular sympathy that those who aid and abet ecclesiastical rule in the state councils, are not as yet venturing to resume stringent proceedings against the Rogerenes. The signal failure to secure a promise of “good behavior” from the Rogerene leader is also a prominent factor in the situation.

Although there is no sign that Capt. James Rogers and his wife have receded from their nonconformity, their son, James, Jr., has married a member of the Congregational church and taken the half-way covenant. He is prominent in the community and has political ambitions, the attainment of which would be impossible for one of a nonconformist persuasion. To have won this talented young man, must be counted a signal victory by Mr. Saltonstall. Samuel, son of Samuel, has also married a member of the Congregational church. He is continuing the bakery on its old scale, has landed interests in the neighboring country, and is surveyor for the town of New London.

Samuel, son of Joseph, now of Westerly, has become a member of the Congregational church, while his older brother James, an enterprising young man, is of the Baptist persuasion.

James Smith, son of Bathsheba, is a close follower of his uncle John, although his sister Elizabeth (married to William Camp) is a member of the Congregational church, in which her children are baptized.

During the respite from graver cares, John Rogers has enough to busy him at Mamacock, outside of his duties as preacher and pastor, in caring for the place (in unison with John, Jr.) and other business interests, making shoes, writing books, and attending to the welfare and training of his two little children, to whom he must be both father and mother. John and Bathsheba have a third child now. So here are five little ones in the home at Mamacock. And there is Mary at Block Island. She came from across the sea, and is likely to have only the one friend in America.

In this eventful year, John Rogers visits Samuel Bownas, a Quaker who is detained in jail at Hempstead, L. I., on a false accusation.

Through the whole of a long conversation with the Quaker (narrated by the latter in his Journal), he makes no reference to Mary, the prominent figure in this period of his history. It is not his purpose to reveal to outsiders that, although he and Mary are separated, he has not resigned her to her fate.

Mr. Bownas states that John Rogers is