111. In his own large inventory is no mention of any slaves.

112. In lieu of other suitable accommodation in New London this edifice continued to be used, for some time, for sessions of this court.—(For John Roger’s account of this trial, see Part I., Chapter V.)

113. Why seizures at this time are confined to this piece of land, can only be conjectured. At this date, the Mamacock land still lay under the attachment of the new executor, James, Jr., and so was safe from this sort of seizure. The attachment by James, Jr., was evidently a mere blind, and it served a double purpose.

114. For John Roger’s description of this prison and his imprisonment, see Part I., Chapter V.

115. This house is a tavern, and has in it the ordinary prison. It is near the Mill Cove.

116. They could not so remind the court, it being contrary to the will for them to give up their executorship, or to have anything to do with the court.

117. The esteem and affection in which Bathsheba was held by her husband, Samuel Fox, may be estimated by the fact that he not only gave valuable lands to her sons by Richard Smith in her lifetime, but, although he had married again, left by will, sixteen years after her death, to her sons by the name of Smith, yet living (James and John), £40 each, and to her three daughters by Richard Smith, £10 each.

118. This deed must have been written in prison. It is recorded among New London land deeds.

119. This due to him was £200 secured by note, and paid to him by the executor.

120. What follows (as far as December, 1713), is derived from statements of John Rogers (see Part I., Chapter V.), from records of Superior Court in New London March 26, and from record of County Court of New London, before which court were arraigned those who prevented the seizure of John Rogers without a warrant.

121. This entrance is thus described on the court records:—

122. That Capt. James, like his brother John, gave up the seventh-day sabbath, adopting the first day for religious services, is indicated by the fact that those of his children that remained Baptists were first-day Baptists. The same is true of the family of Joseph Rogers, many of whose descendants were (and are) Baptists of the regular persuasion.

Nothing has been found to disprove the supposition that Capt. James Rogers and his wife and Joseph Rogers and his wife continued in the Rogerene faith to the end. John Rogers had many followers, while the names of only a few of those more conspicuous in leadership are revealed to us by the court records. The fact that certain sons of Capt. James and of Joseph inclined to, and finally united with, the Congregational church readily accounts for the less prominent stand of their parents.

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

124. “Prey Taken from the Strong.”

125. In fact, the wife of John Rogers was discharged the day after the occurrence. She, being a regular Quaker, came under different laws from the Rogerenes and appears to have been treated with some leniency. Her coming from the State of New York and from a prominent Quaker community in that State may have had something to do with this leniency.

126. “And first I grant that the governor did actually make this promise, viz., that, to persuade us to forbear, if we would be quiet and worship God in our own way according to our consciences, he would punish any of their people that should disturb our worship,—and that it was in a Public Court before a multitude of hearers.”—John Rogers, 2d.

We find after intimation by John, 2d, that this promise of the governor was not kept.

127. About four months before and evidently a town court and the one referred to by John Bolles.

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

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

130. The following is from the “Hempstead Diary:”—“1719, Sept. 6, Sun. Jno. Rogers and his crew made a disturbance—the midst of prayer time They came in a horse cart. Committed to prison at night.”

131. See Appendix for “Request of John Rogers from New London Prison, November 17, 1719,” which seems to be connected with this charge against Sarah Bolles.

132. The following, from Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Justice Backus, appears to indicate the usual manner of this interference, although referring, in this particular case, to the church at Norwich.—“And several times since, when we have passed by their meeting-house along the road towards our own meeting, their constable has prest a considerable number of men out of their meeting house, who with horses have followed hard after us with ungoverned zeal, and have stopped us and made prisoners of us for the sake of our religion.”

133. It was the Rogerene custom when arraigned for countermove offenses, either to make no reply to this court query or to reply “not guilty,” in the sense of having done nothing wrong. We occasionally find John Bolles replying that he will “be judged by God and not by man.”

134. Jacob Waterhouse married Ann Douglass (daughter of Mr. Robert Douglass and Mary Hempstead, daughter of Robert Hempstead). John was their oldest child, born, 1690.

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

136. Daughter of John Culver and recently married to John Waterhouse.

137. Here it may be well to refer to the mode of distribution of the works of this author. He appears to have himself carried many of them about New England, going long journeys on horseback, the books in his portmanteau. This not only gave him opportunity to circulate his writings more extensively, but to discourse with people at a distance, and also to preach in various places. He must in such, as well as in other more evident ways, have been extensively known and famous in his day. This accounts for his dedication of the above-mentioned volume “To the Flock Scattered Throughout New England.” John Bolles circulated many of his own books in like manner.

138. “John Rogers and several of his Society (having as good a right to the New London meeting-house as any in the town) did propose to hold our meeting there at noon-time, between the meeting of the other congregation, so as not to disturb them in either of their meetings. And, accordingly, we met there, and finding their meeting not ended, we stood without the door until their forenoon meeting was ended and the people came out, and then John Rogers told them our design was to make no disturbance, but to hold our meeting while they were at dinner, and when they were ready for the afternoon meeting we would desist and go away. Whereupon I heard no person manifest any dislike of our proceedings. Whereupon, John Rogers went into the seat which the town officers seated him in after the meeting house was built” (viz., rebuilt) “and proceeded to expound a chapter in the Bible. But in the time of our meeting, the constable was sent with a warrant to break up our meeting, and was attended with a rude company of men, who began to haul men and women out of meeting, committing some to prison, as did Paul in his unconverted state. And when Sarah Bolles saw the constable and his attendant carrying her husband to prison by his arms and legs, with his belly downward, in a very cruel manner, she and Josiah Gates, another of our Society, went to the Governor minding him of his late promise to defend us in our meetings from any that should disturb us and desired him that her husband might not be so abused, but all the relief they had, Josiah Gates received a box on the ear from the governor’s own hand, and they were both turned out of doors by the governor, and the next day the governor sat judge himself of the matter and bound over J. Rogers to the County Court, charging him with a riot, though all he did was to expound a chapter as aforesaid, and all that his people did was to attend to his exposition, in as quiet a manner as was ever in any meeting in the king’s dominions, till the constable with his rude attendants made the disturbance. However, the court fined John Rogers 10 shillings and the charges. Execution was given out, and the sheriff first took ten sheep and then a milch cow”—“And I do further add that I know of no protection that we have met with from the authority, relating to our worship but what has been of the same nature.”—Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Peter Pratt.

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

139. In the first place, he (J. Backus) asserts that our infallible spirit deceived us as it did john Rogers, who pretended from the inspiration that he was proof against all infection of body etc. Now I am fully persuaded that John Rogers never spake those words, but that J. Backus is highly guilty of slandering him in his grave concerning this matter. He also adds that to put the matter upon trial he daringly ventured into Boston in the time of the small pox, but received the infection and died of it, with several of his family.

Now how presumptuous and censorious a judgment it is for him to assert that his going to Boston was daringly to put the matter upon trial, when it was well known that it had been his practice for more than forty years past to visit all sick persons as often as he had opportunity, and particularly those who had the small pox; when in the height of their distemper he has sat on their bedside several hours at a time, discoursing of the things of God; so that his going to Boston the last time, was no other than his constant practice had been ever since he made a profession of religion. Now it is certain that John Rogers in his lifetime, and all his Society to this day, do firmly believe, from the testimony of the Scriptures, that God’s protection is with his faithful children through the course of this life, to continue them to old age (notwithstanding the calamities that he sends on the earth), except when He calls them to lay down their lives for his truth by way of martyrdom, as may be seen abundantly in Scripture, Job 5, 26. Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in his season. Psalm 91, 16, With long life will I satisfy him etc. Now the age of man is set forth in Scripture to be seventy years, as is to be seen Psal. 90, 10.

Now although we have the Scripture plentifully to confirm us in this principle of God’s protecting his faithful children to old age etc., yet we know it is appointed for all men once to die, according to what is written Heb. 9, 27, and by what manner of death it may please God to take them to himself, after he hath preserved them to old age, he has not revealed, and therefore neither J. Rogers in his lifetime, nor any of his Society since his death, has undertaken to decide the matter; judging it to be one of those secret things which God hath not revealed to us, and therefore is not our business to meddle with, according to what is written, Deut. 28, 29. The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things that are revealed belong unto us &c.

Now let every unprejudiced reader take notice how little cause J. Backus has to reflect John Roger’s manner of death upon him, who lived to the age of seventy-three years, and then died in his own house on his own bed, having his reason continued to the last, and manifesting his peace with God and perfect assurance of a better life. He had also a very easy death, without any struggling or striving as is common to many people.—Answer of John Rogers, 2d, to J. Backus.

140. In Inventory, watch, portmanteau and jackboots, also besides saddle, etc., a “male pillion,” indicating a frequent companion in his journeyings.

141. The only house built at Scotch Cap before the present century was built about 1740, by Capt. Benj. Greene. Until within a few years, the cellar of that house remained and also the chimney. It was called “the chimney lot.”

142. “Although the practice of it” (half-way covenant) “did not begin here” (New London) “until Mr. Saltonstall’s pastorate, yet it was in the air, was practiced by most of the leading churches in the Colony. But when the pastorate of Mr. Saltonstall began, we find that the new way had gained a foothold. It was known as the Presbyterian way. It was the system of all national churches, ... all persons of good moral character living within the parochial bounds were to have, as in England and Scotland, the privilege of baptism for their children and access to the Lord’s table. (Ecc. His. of Conn., pp. 28, 29.) It is to be understood that this refers to persons who laid no claims to regenerate character. There was no awakening in this church” (New London Congregational) “nor indeed in N. Eng. worth mentioning before 1748—effect on this church may be seen in the fact that during the first half century of its existence not over 200 members were received and a full century of its life passed without a religious awakening.”—From History of First Congregational Church of New London, by Rev. Mr. Blake.

143. This may account for the traditions credited by Miss Caulkins of some sort of entrance into that church. (“History of Norwich.”) It is possible that attacks from this church were only to be held in check by some significant warning; but that there was any disturbance of meeting seems disproven by absence of any court record to that effect. The law regarding disturbance of meeting is very explicit, calling for presentation before the County Court.

If any person shall come to any church or congregation, either established or allowed by the laws of this colony, and disquiet and disturb the same, such person or persons upon proof thereof before any assistant or justice of the peace, by two sufficient witnesses, shall be bound in £50 for appearance at next County Court, and in default of same to be committed to prison to remain until sitting of said court, and upon conviction of said offence shall suffer the penalty of £20.

144. No proof of refusal to pay these fines appears until a much later date.

145. Then said these men; We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.—Daniel 6, 5.

146. Viz.: by their principles of non-resistance.

147. This refers to the pew built for the Governor near the pulpit. Miss Caulkins (“History New London”) mentions a similar contention between prominent members of this church, under a somewhat earlier date, in which the case was carried to court for final decision.

Two of the three sons of Governor Saltonstall, Nathaniel and Gurdon, remained in New London. Rosewell, the eldest, settled in Blanford and died in 1738. Of him Mr. Hempstead says in his Diary:—“he was an Incomparable, well Disposed Gentleman, a good Christian exaplaryexaplary in his Living orderly and good in every Relation.

Gurdon, 2d, was a leading man in New London and held numerous important offices. Mr. Hempstead calls him “Col. Saltonstall” as early as 1740. He lived in the Saltonstall homestead and marshalled his fourteen children in the family procession for church every Sunday, after the example of his father, the governor. (“History of New London.”) His eldest child, Gurdon, 3d, was born in 1734, and his second, Dudley, in 1736.

148. It is shown by Hempstead’s Diary that Hannah Plumb was daughter of John Plumb and baptized, as an infant, in the Congregational church, December, 1723, also that her father was a nephew of Mr. Hempstead, and her mother a daughter of Mr. Peter Harris. A son of her uncle, Peter Plumb, married a granddaughter of John Bolles.

149. They first settled in Morris County, N.J.—Schooley’s Mountain—but soon moved south to above location. About eleven years later, they seem to have returned to Schooley’s Mountain. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, many of these New Jersey Rogerenes are said to have removed to the “red stone country,” supposed to be Virginia. Most of them had names indicative of Groton origin, as Waterhouse, Mann, Lamb, etc., showing that other Groton people either accompanied the Culvers to New Jersey or joined them there. It would be interesting to know more of the New Jersey Rogerenes than has been discovered. Very naturally, various fabrications regarding the New London Rogerenes have become attached to them also, simply because they were of the same sect.

150. Upon his gravestone is inscribed:—“In memory of Abraham Weair. Died March 24, 1768, aged 85 years. Whose innocent life adorned true light.”

151. The following brief but explicit counsel to his followers by John Rogers, Sr., contained in one of his books, under the heading here given, is all that has been found in Rogerene writings regarding the doctrine of divine healing:—

In Time of Sickness, Ake or Pain, we are to examine our own Hearts, to see and find out the cause of God’s Chastisement, and to look up to Him who wounds, and whose Hands alone make whole, who is the same Yesterday, Today and forever; and to attend the Apostle Jame’s Direction. James 5, 13 etc. If any Man among you be afflicted, let him pray; is any merry, let him sing Psalms; is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oyl in the Name of the Lord; and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed Sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your Faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much.—J. R.

152. The “History of the German Sectaries” (Philadelphia, 1899) by Julius F. Sachse, gives an account of this New London visit derived from the Journal of the Pilgrims. By that history, it will be seen that these Ephrata brethren were men of learning, and had at the Cloister a printing-press, from which issued numerous publications, in both German and English type. Products of this press are among the rarest specimens of Americana.

153. Since John Rogers resided as a pastor on the Great Neck from 1675 to 1699 he had undoubtedly a following of that locality.

154. Her first child was baptized in the Congregational church, but the other children do not appear on the Congregational church records, by which it may be judged that she was brought over to her husband’s views in this particular.

155. The early graves still discernible in this old family burying-ground are marked by natural, uninscribed stones, which was the ordinary mode before gravestones came into common use in New England. In family burying-places, on farms or in out-of-the-way places, the lack of inscriptions continued to a comparatively late period. Many such old family burying-places have been long obliterated. The preservation of this one is probably due to its being secured by deed. (See New London Record, November 13, 1751.) It is said that, despite the lack of inscriptions, descendants in the earlier part of the nineteenth century could tell who was buried in each of the old graves. The railroad has cut off a portion of this burial ground, which originally extended to the verge of the river. Tradition states that some of the graves on the river bank were washed away at the time of the great September gale (1813).

156. There are numerous allusions to John Rogers, 2d, in the “Hempstead Diary,” but a number of references to “John Rogers,” which in the published Diary are credited to John, 2d, refer to his cousin, Capt. John Rogers, of Great Neck vicinity, as does the statement under October 4, 1735, that John Rogers “girdled the apple trees” on the “Crossman lot.” This “Crossman lot,” on the Great Neck, by “Lower Mamacock,” was in litigation between Capt. John Rogers and Mr. Hempstead, for some time, and was finally accorded to Mr. Hempstead. “Lower Mamacock” by “lower Alewife Cove,” is easily confounded with “Upper Mamacock,” by “upper Alewife Cove,” although they are six or seven miles apart.

157. This coopering establishment was located on Main Street, by the Mill Cove, on land which had been given him by his father in 1725 (New London Record); it bordered the Mill Cove and there was a wharf belonging to it. Tradition has confounded this James with his son James, the only son of the former who reached middle life. James, Jr., was remembered by some of the older people of the middle of the nineteenth century and familiarly called “Jimmy Rogers.” He succeeded to the business of his father, by the Mill Cove, and continued it on a still larger scale, packing beef of his own preparation, in barrels of his own manufacture, and shipping it to southern markets. He was a very successful business man; but the piety conspicuous in the character of his father is not ascribable to this James, who appears not to have made any profession of the Christian faith. He was a young man at the time of the persecution of the Society to which his father belonged, which was instituted by the denomination of which his mother was a member, and which resulted in the blood-curdling scenes attendant upon the countermove of 1764-6. Such scenes enacted by professing Christians, in vengeful punishment of other professing Christians, were calculated to make anything but a religious impression upon a youth of the strictly practical turn of mind that is ascribed to this James.

158. The farm now (1904) occupied by Mr. Henry Benham is a portion of what was the James Rogers farm. A southern portion of the latter was sold by heirs of James, Jr., to the Lewis brothers. The farm inherited by Samuel Rogers is now owned by Mr. Stephen Comstock. Mamacock proper, left to John Rogers, 3d, is the farm now owned by Mr. Fitzgerald, including Mamacock peninsula. Each of these farms had, originally, pasture and woodland on the west side of the Norwich road.

All of the above farms were valuable in old times, when clearings were the exception, being rich lands carefully cultivated.

159. Specimens of his penmanship still extant, would compare favorably with that of modern masters. These specimens are in possession of Mr. Gilbert Rogers, of Quaker Hill.

160. The liberal salary, for those times, accorded this very young man was £100 per annum and a gratuity of £240 every four years. Yet we soon find him complaining of the insufficiency of his salary.

161. After the terrible scenes which have been brought about by his policy, we find him, even in taking leave of the Congregational church, complaining that the laws against the Rogerenes are “not enforced.” If in the day of his disaster he is making such complaint, what must have been his urgency at the time of his confident entry upon this scene?

162. See extracts from “Reply to Mr. Byles,” by Joseph Bolles, in Appendix.

163. There are traditions among descendants of the Rogerenes to the effect that one of the features of the persecution that called forth the countermove of 1764-6 was molestation of the Rogerenes for not attending regular (“lawful”) meetings. This tradition is found in different families situated far apart. Mr. John R. Bolles received such a statement from his mother (who was a daughter of John Rogers, 3d). Since this history asserts nothing upon tradition, this cannot be stated as a proven fact, although it appears fully probable.

164. There are said to be indications (J. S. Sachse) that memorial services for Ebenezer Bolles, as entertainer of the Pilgrims in 1744, were held at the Ephrata Cloister. In a reference to his death, on the records of the Cloister, is this invocation: “God grant him a blessed resurrection!”

165. The ineffectiveness of medicines and applications to even alleviate the symptoms of such poisoning, after the malady is fully under way, is well known. Yet neither with nor without the use of medical means would death be expected to ensue in such a case. That there was an unsuspected complication in this instance, leading to sudden death, seems probable. To persons living in the country, as did the Rogerenes for the most part, an illness so common as poisoning by ivy or by alder (apparently the latter in this case) would not be regarded of a really dangerous character, however distressing. There have been persons greatly bloated and in great suffering by such poison, whose condition gave no serious alarm and who recovered in the usual period.

166. Quakertown traditions regarding this period are no less thrilling than those of New London side, and point to measures reaching even into the wilds of Groton. Only by spies and officials in the vicinity of the Groton Rogerenes, could they have been made to share in the persecution. As before said, most of their neighbors were Baptists. A historical account of the Baptist church of that vicinity avers, apparently from tradition, that some of the Groton Rogerenes came to that church in this period, bringing work, interrupting the minister, etc. If the Groton Rogerenes were seriously molested by these Baptists, it is not unlikely that they instituted a countermove on that church for protection; but we have been unable to discover any proof of the accuracy of the statement regarding disturbance of the Baptist meetings, no record regarding such disturbance having been found, or any contemporary mention of the same. (See “Quakertown Chapter.”)

The fact that the Rogerene leaders of Groton were closely related to some on the New London side, added to the fact that they were church brethren, is sufficient to account for their joining with the Quaker Hill people in the New London countermove. John Waterhouse had a son of the same name living on Quaker Hill at this time, on a farm that had been given to him by his father.

167. It was usually in the time of this unscriptural prayer that the countermove took place.

168. Mr. Byles, having precipitately left New London and the country to receive Episcopal orders in England, his “forsaken congregation” (Caulkins) criticised and ridiculed him mercilessly, even to lampoons (see “History of New London”), among which was one called “The Proselyte,” which was sung to the tune of “The Thief and the Cordelier.” He afterwards became an Episcopal minister in Boston, but in the time of the Revolution was a royalist and a refugee, among those prohibited from returning to Massachusetts. He was succeeded in the Congregational church at New London by Rev. Ephraim Woodbridge, grandson of the first Congregational minister of Groton, of the same name. Mr. Woodbridge was a most estimable man. He allowed of no admission to church membership without evidence of conversion, contrary to the practice so long in vogue in New London previous to his ministry. It is a notable fact that certain families belonging to the Congregational church before this season of persecution, are afterwards found members of another denomination. It is unlikely that the popularity of this church was other than injured by the fame of this exploit, the effect of which, as well as the new rule for admission, may help to account for the fact that by 1776 there were but five men on its roll of membership. It will be remembered that some members of this church were allied to the Rogerenes, while others were evidently liberal and friendly.

169. Of John Bolles, 4th (on his mother’s side a grandson of Joseph Bolles), who served in the Revolution on board armed vessels of Connecticut, and died on board a prison ship of the enemy, it was said, by one who knew him, that he was “a young man of extraordinary intelligence, information and gallantry.”

170. In his will, dated 1727, Samuel Whipple left the iron-works and saw-mill to his son Daniel; his lands with buildings to be divided between his sons Samuel, Zacharia and Zephania. The portion of Zacharia sold in 1734 for £1,000.

171. The first of the name who came to Quakertown was Samuel Whipple (son of above Noah and Hope), born in 1766, a man of most estimable character and devotedly attached to peace principles. His brother Silas also settled in Quakertown. Samuel is ancestor of those of the name now resident in that locality.

172. At the same date, Andrew Davis must also have been advanced in years.

173. The tone and style of this work as a whole are in marked contrast to the works of John Rogers, 1st, John Rogers, 2d, and John Bolles, whose writings, although earnest, are of a very dispassionate character.

174. It is very possible that this Society refused to pay military fines from the first; but no record of such refusal has been found.

175. An original printed copy of this Petition is extant in Quakertown.

176. The old meeting-house is upon land which was part of the farm occupied by John Waterhouse, and afterwards by his son Timothy.

177. Town records reveal one of these as a freeman, years after, in a neighboring town, a respected colored man, with an exceptionally lively family of children.

178. Great-grandson of John Rogers, 2d, and of John Bolles.

179. This information was furnished by a native of Quakertown who attended this meeting—Mr. Ira Whipple, afterwards of Westerly.

180. In Mr. Bowna’s account of his conversation with John Rogers (1703) he states that John Rogers said his Society “admitted any one who wanted information concerning the meaning of any text to put the question, and it was then expounded and spoken to as they understood it; and one being admitted to show his dissent with his reasons for it: ‘Thus,’ said he, ‘we improve our youth in Scriptural knowledge.’ I asked him if they did not sometimes carry their differences in sentiment too far, to their hurt? He acknowledged there was danger in doing so, but they guarded against it as much as they could.”

181. In his last sickness, Elder Zephania Watrous sent for the leader of the party which had opposed his conservative views and asked forgiveness for anything on his own part that might have seemed unfriendly to his opponent.

182. It is not to be inferred that no new families have come into Quakertown, or that none of the people have married outside. Accessions to this community have been not infrequent, both by marriage and otherwise.

183. Quakertown is said not to be so rocky and sterile as it appears to a person riding over the road, but to have a considerable amount of good farming-land.

184. The following is from a poem by Mrs. Benham, entitled “Peace.”