This speciously worded sentence is deserving of some reply. Suppose the little band of Rogerenes to have attained the size and power necessary for religious legislation, and to be able to do by their opponents exactly as the latter have done by them. They must exact of these the keeping of a seventh day Sabbath, demand aid for the support of seventh day churches, and enact that none shall go to or from their homes on the seventh day, except between said homes and seventh day churches. In case any of these laws be broken, or any dare speak out in first day churches against the tyranny and bigotry of this seventh day legislation, such shall be fined, imprisoned, scourged and set in the stocks. Could any person really suppose such a course possible for these conscientious students of New Testament teachings, who are not only opposed to any religious legislation, but long before this date have given marked attention to the gentle, peaceable doctrines of the Gospel, and listened with respect and interest to the expositions of the Quakers, one of whom at the start had found them “tender and loving”. Close upon this date, the Rogerenes are found openly and zealously advocating the non-resistant principles of the New Testament.

A fact not revealed by court records (but which must frequently be taken into account in this history) is detected in this letter of Governor Leete: “if they would forbear to offend our conscience,” etc., “we would give them no offence in the seventh day worshipping,” viz.: until such time as the Rogerenes will forbear to labor upon the first day of the week, they must expect, not only fines, imprisonment and stocks, but to have their Saturday meetings broken up, according to the pleasure or caprice of the authorities.^[51] Constant liability to punishment by the town authorities, for failure to pay fines for holding their Saturday meetings, is one of the aggravating features of this warfare. (All the power used by the magistrates “at their own discretion” was exercised wholly in the dark, so far as any records are concerned, and the periods of greatest severity in its exercise can only be discerned by effects which can be attributed to no other cause.)

Continual breaking up of their meetings, together with fines and imprisonments for breach of the first day Sabbath—to say nothing of the license allowed the ever mischievous and merciless mob to aid in indignities—is at length beginning to tell on this people in a manner quite opposite to that looked for by their opponents.

In June, 1678, James Rogers, Sr., and his sons, John and James, enter the New London meeting-house and take their seats in the pews set off to them, that of James, Sr., being, presumably, the highest of all, since he is the largest taxpayer in the town. It may be supposed by some that their spirits are at length subdued by the three years of incessant persecutions and annoyances. But presently they rise, one by one, in the midst of the service, and declare their condemnation of a worship in the name of Christ, which upholds persecution of those worshipping in the same name, and by the same book, who, in this name and this book, find no command for a first day Sabbath. To bring such arguments into the midst of a Congregational meeting is more effectual than any violence of constable or mob; yet, so far from being contrary to any command of the Gospel, it is a direct maintenance of the command there set forth to testify to the truth, regardless of consequences. At last, these distressed people have devised a method by which even this powerful ecclesiastical domination may be held in check.

From the church they are taken to prison, from prison to trial. They are fined £5 each. Payment of the fine being refused, imprisonment ensues, at their own expense,^[52] for such a period as will as effectually deplete their purses. Fines and imprisonments are to them common experiences; but the church party understand that here, at last, is an effective weapon in the hands of these people, with blade of no lesser metal than the words of the Master himself.

(For nearly five years after this countermove, no disturbance of meeting and no serious molestation of the Rogerenes appears on record. Evidently during that period the commissioners are not displaying such zeal in breaking up seventh day meetings as was the case previous to this appearance in the meeting-house.)

1679.

In October, 1679, there appears in the records of the General Court, an effort on the part of Samuel Rogers to clear a stigma from the reputation of his wife. She has been charged, by a man who has lost some money, with having appropriated it, and the County Court, by weight of circumstantial evidence, decided the case in favor of the plaintiff. In the case before the General Court, at this date, a man who has been imprisoned, on charge of being the true culprit, not being appeared against by Samuel Rogers, is released. (During the four years following this release, Samuel Rogers is at much expense in endeavoring to establish his wife’s innocence. In 1683, he presents such clear proof of the falsity of the charge that the General Court grants him 300 acres of land, towards compensation for time and money expended in clearing his wife’s name. In this instance, Samuel Rogers makes an address to the court, the substance of which does not appear on record.)

By this time there are a considerable number of Sabbatarians on the Great Neck, some of whom have come from Rhode Island. Any who object to the ultra movement of which John Rogers is the exponent, can attend the meetings of the less radical Mr. Gibson. Both of these pastors appear, however, to be working largely in unison, and they are both arraigned before the County Court, in September of this year, for servile labor on the first day of the week, together with James Rogers, Sr., and Capt. James. John Rogers is fined 20s., and the others 10s. each, and “the authority of the place” is desired “to call these or any others to account” for future profanation of the Sabbath, and to punish them according to law. On this occasion, Mr. Gibson states that he usually works upon the first day of the week. It is presumable that Jonathan Rogers also works, although not conspicuously.

This is one of the spasmodic efforts to check this growing community of nonconformists, by punishment of the bolder offenders, despite the fact that the child is growing too sturdy and strategic to be handled with perfect impunity.

In the latter part of this year, Mr. Hubbard, having come to the Great Neck on a visit (probably to the home of his granddaughter, Naomi Rogers), finds that Mr. James Rogers has recently been severely injured, by a loaded cart having passed over his leg, below the knee, for which injury he has allowed of no physician, “their judgment being not to use any means.” A cart in these days being of no delicate mechanism, it is not improbable that a physician would have advised amputation. Mr. Rogers appears to be well on the way to recovery at the date of Mr. Hubbard’s visit.

1682.

Save the moderate fine in September, 1679, for a single non-observance of the first day of the week, which non-observance has been occurring with every recurring Sunday, no recorded effort to suppress the sect occurs from the date of the appearance of James Rogers and his sons in the Congregational meeting-house, 1678, until late in 1682, when William Gibson, John Rogers, James, Sr., Capt. James, Joseph, Bathsheba and her husband, Richard Smith, are presented before the County Court for “prophanation of the Sabbath,” upon which occasion John Rogers declares that he worked the last first day, the first day before, and the first day before that, and so had done for several years. James, Sr., and Capt. James express themselves to the same effect. Bathsheba and her husband “own” that this is their practice also, and aver that, “by the help of God,” they shall so continue.

The court, not only “for the offense” but for the “pride, obstinacy and resolution” displayed in regard to continuance of the offense, fines each of the offenders 30s. apiece,—except Joseph, whom they fine 20s.,—and to continue in prison until they shall give good security for the payment of these fines. A bond of £20 each is also required, for their good behavior for the future and abstinence from all servile work on the first day of the week.

Here is the bringing up of a fast horse with dangerous suddenness. But for the imprisonment, it is almost certain that the next Sabbath would see another interruption of the Congregational services. As it is, Joseph and Captain James break out of the prison, for which the latter is fined £3 and the former £5. Undoubtedly they are speedily apprehended and returned to prison. (It is entirely unlikely that any of the fines are paid or bonds given; so that how these people finally escape from durance, unless after very long imprisonment, cannot be conceived.)

1683.

In this year occurs the death of Richard Smith, husband of Bathsheba. Also the will of James Rogers is written, at his dictation, by his son John. In this year James Rogers confirms to his son Joseph all his lands at “Poquoig or Robin Hood’s Bay,” within certain boundaries of fence, ledge and “dry pond.” This land appears to be a part of the gift of land returned by Joseph to his father, in 1670.

1684.

A youth is growing up at Lyme, in regard to whom Matthew Griswold and his daughter Elizabeth may well feel some concern, although it afterwards appears that he is one of the brightest and manliest boys in the colony. This is none other than John Rogers, Jr. For five years past, his mother has been the wife of Peter Pratt, of Lyme, who has a son by this marriage. That gentleman is doomed to suffer no little trouble of conscience in regard to his marriage to the wife of John Rogers, having himself come to doubt that any valid reasons for the divorce ever existed.^[53]

In May, 1684, Matthew Griswold and his daughter petition the General Court “for power to order and dispose of John Rogers, Jr., John Rogers still continuing in his evil practises,” which “evil practices” were set forth, in the previous permission of the court regarding the continuance of the children of John Rogers with their mother, in these words: “he being so hettridox in his opinion and practice.” Their request is granted, the youth “to be apprenticed by them to some honest man.”

John Rogers, Jr., is now barely ten years of age, and must be a forward youth to be apprenticed so young, unless we suppose this a mere device to put him under stricter control of his mother’s family. He has surely heard nothing in favor of his father from those among whom he has been reared, unless perhaps from his stepfather. Yet neither mother nor grandparents can keep his young heart from turning warmly towards the dauntless nonconformist at New London.

If it has been hoped that, by another attempt at more heroic treatment than the spasmodic onslaughts of the town magistrates, a death-blow may yet be dealt to the Rogerenes, it must soon become evident that such is unlikely to be the case. Not only so, but there is danger that some of the principal members of the New London Congregational church, and those among the most moneyed, may be won over to the new persuasion. Samuel Beebe, Jr., eldest son of one of the most substantial citizens, has recently married Elizabeth, daughter of James Rogers, and is conforming to the faith and usages of that family. Several from the Congregational church have recently been rebaptized by the new sect.

1685.

The prospect of further injury to the New London church, as well as to general church conformity in the colony, becomes such that, in the spring of 1685, another resolute attempt is made by the New London authorities, “by advice of the Governor and Council,” to put a stop to the performance of servile labor on the first day of the week, as also baptism—and rebaptism—by immersion.

On Sunday, April 12, 1685, several of the leading spirits are imprisoned for working on the first day of the week. The court records show that some of these escape, and enter the meeting-house in time of public service, to denounce such persecution of followers of the Lord, by those who pretend to worship in His name.

Two days after (April 14), John Rogers, Capt. James Rogers, Samuel Beebe, Jr., and Joanna Way are complained of before the County Court for servile work in general upon the first day of the week “and particularly upon the last first day (12th), although they have and may enjoy their persuasion undisturbed” (here is a revelation of the fact that their Saturday meetings have not been interrupted of late, and possibly not since the institution of the countermove in 1678); also “for coming into town at several times to rebaptize persons” and “for recently disturbing public worship,” and because “they go on still to disturb and give disturbance.”^[54]

Upon examination, John Rogers is found guilty of servile work upon that first day and on many others, “by his own confession,” and “will yet go on to do it,” regardless of the law forbidding. The court also finds him guilty of “disturbing God’s people in time of public worship.” For all this, they order that he receive fifteen lashes upon the naked body. He is then complained of for baptizing a person contrary to law, “having no authority so to doe,” for which he is fined £5.

Captain James is complained of for servile work, “by his own confession,” that he worked on the last Sunday, “and would doe it again.” Also he came into the meeting-house, in time of worship, “where he behaved himself in a frantick manner to the amazing of some and causing some women to swounde away,” for which he is to have fifteen lashes on the naked body. He is also fined £5 for baptizing a negro woman.

Samuel Beebe is complained of for work on the first day and for declaring that he will continue in that practice as long as he lives. He also is to receive fifteen lashes on the naked body and to pay a fine of £5, although he is charged neither with disturbance of meeting nor with baptizing. Why this double punishment, unless because this young man has recently left the Congregational church to join the nonconformists? Such punishment may intimidate others who are thus inclined. That “discretion” granted the judges appears very prominent in this case.

Joanna Way, for servile work, for declaring that she will still continue in that practice, and for giving disturbance in the meeting-house, is sentenced to receive fifteen lashes on the naked body.

Here we find four persons, one of them a woman, receiving fifteen lashes each on the naked body for working on the first day, while keeping the seventh day, and for venturing the one sure mode of holding their persecutors in check.

In this disturbance of the meeting, Capt. James Rogers is the only one accounted guilty of “amazing” the congregation and causing women to “swounde.” He is not charged with having attempted any violence in the church, and has before this become a convert to the peaceable doctrines of the Quakers. The court record gives no hint of the words used on this occasion by Captain James, or why the women were induced to “swounde.”^[55]

Despite the £5 fine, in less than two months thereafter (June) John Rogers is complained of for baptizing, found guilty, “on his own confession,” and again fined £5.

(Although the Rogerenes continue steadfastly and openly to perform servile labor on the first day of the week, as well as to baptize, there appears no further arraignment before the court for these causes for a good while to come; the entrance into the meeting-house, April 12, 1685, proving, like the entrance of 1678, an effectual check upon their enemies.)

About the first of June of this same year, messengers are sent to New London from the Sabbatarian church at Newport, “to declare against two or more of them that were of us who are declined to Quakerism, of whom be thou aware, for by their principles they will travel by land and by sea to make disciples, yea sorry ones too. Their names are John and James Rogers and one Donham.”^[56] What have these two young men been doing now? They have ventured to adopt and to preach the principle of non-resistance, and so, by this long-forward step, have “declined to Quakerism.” This adoption of peace principles appears, in the estimation of the gentle and saintly Mr. Hubbard,—recorder of the above bulletin,—to have completed their downfall. He sufficiently expresses the attitude of the Newport church towards Quakers and their non-resistant principles. John and James Rogers have not been to the Quakers to learn these principles, but have taken them directly from the New Testament, where the Quakers themselves found them.

That John and James have been baptizing persons in the town, and probably at the very mill cove where John, over seven years before, baptized his sister-in-law, is apparent. Captain James is not only baptizing, but also, as shown by Mr. Hubbard’s letter, preaching and proselyting. Mr. Hubbard does not complain of his baptizing or preaching, by which it appears that he did these in Sabbatarian order, but only of his preaching a Quaker doctrine. The names of John and Captain James still remain on the roll of membership of the Newport church. To drop them for preaching the pacific principles of the Gospel is no easier than to drop them for having accepted the principle of healing by prayer and faith as set forth in that Gospel.

In this year, Elizabeth, daughter of John Rogers, now fourteen years of age, is, at her own request, allowed by her mother and the Griswolds to return to her father; she who left him a child of three years. She is still the only daughter of her mother, and, by affirmation of both her brothers, John Rogers, 2d, and Peter Pratt,^[57] a most lovable character.

Her free committal of this girl child to the care and training of John Rogers, gives proof conclusive that “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” however she may disapprove of her former husband’s religious course, knows well of the uprightness of his character and the kindness of his heart.

1687.

In December, 1687, “Elizabeth, former wife of John Rogers,” resigns her claim to Mamacock, on condition of certain payments, in instalments, signing herself, “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold.”—(New London Records.)

1688.

James Rogers, Sr., is in declining health and fast nearing the end. November 17, 1687, he was unable to sign a deed of exchange of land. It was witnessed as his act by his sons John and James. Administration on his estate commences September, 1688. He leaves a large estate to his children, all of whom have received bountiful gifts from him in his lifetime, and all of whom are intelligent, conscientious, temperate and industrious.

While James Rogers was leading the busy life of a man of varied interests, worldly honor for his children must have been as much a stimulus as the accumulation for their sakes of money and of lands. That honor was relinquished in the cause which he and his espoused.

The esteem in which this man and his wife have been held is shown, among other things, by the failure of the Congregational church to expel them. In fact, where could that church lay a finger upon any violation, on the part of these members, of the teachings of Him in whose name that church was founded? Their names remain on the roll of Congregational church members. Yet by brethren in that church they have been scorned and injured, and their children have been lashed for venturing to follow with exactness New Testament precepts and examples.

In trouble and sorrow, under the despotism that had assumed the very authority of that Lord whom he himself had learned to trust so unreservedly, the mortal life of James Rogers approached its close. Yet, wondrously upheld by faith in God the Father, Christ the Saviour, and the presence of that Comforter which had been promised to all true believers, he was enabled to look far beyond all earthly gain or losses, all worldly disappointment and the injustice and uncharitableness of men, to the eternal blessings and rewards of heaven. Although religious preambles to wills are not unusual at this period, they are generally of a set form, with slight variations; but that which James Rogers dictated, to his son John, was an evident expression of his religious faith couched in his own words: “I do know and see that my name is written in the book of life.”^[58]

A noticeable feature of this will is the evidently anxious intention of the testator that the court shall have as little as possible to do with the settlement of his estate, and that his children shall carefully avoid any litigation concerning it. (Part I, Chap. I.)

Five years elapsed between the writing of the will and the decease of the testator; and in the meantime a codicil was attached to it.

[It is certainly very lamentable that even one of the children of James Rogers considered it necessary to set aside the last request of so loving and generous a father, by entering upon any suit at law in regard to the settlement of his estate, and this after the first so amicable agreement on the part of each to fully abide by the terms of the will. But it is still more lamentable that, through lack of careful examination into the facts of the case, those children who positively refrained from the slightest action contrary to this request of their father, should be included in the sweeping statement of the New London historian (Miss Caulkins): “his children, notwithstanding, engaged in long and acrimonious contention regarding boundaries, in the course of which earthly judges were often obliged to interfere and enforce settlement.”^[59]

The including of all the children in this statement is not its only error; “earthly judges” being in no way “obliged to interfere” or “enforce,” otherwise than by carrying on in the usual manner the business presented to the court.

Because of this erroneous statement, often quoted by other historians, it will be necessary to burden this work with exact note of every case in which any child of James Rogers has any connection with court dealings regarding the settlement of this estate, which settlement, on account of the longevity of the widow, extends over a long period, evidently much longer than was anticipated by the testator, she having been in an impaired condition for some time prior to his decease. This impairment appears to have been more of a mental than physical character, however, and of an intermittent description, indicating whole or partial recovery at intervals. When the intense strain upon mind and heart which this wife and mother must have endured ever since 1674 is considered, one cannot but suspect this to be the cause of an impairment of her mental powers while she still retained so much recuperative vigor even to unusual longevity.]

For some years previous to the date of his death, the home farm of James Rogers was upon that beautiful portion of the shore lands of the Great Neck called Goshen, and here his widow continues to reside. His son Jonathan’s place is adjoining on the south. Captain James lives in the same vicinity, and is now to have the Goshen farm lands, under the will. Although Bathsheba has a farm in this locality, received from her father, she appears to be living—with her children—at her mother’s, and her brother John is there also, with a life right in the house, under the will. Samuel Beebe resides in the same neighborhood, and Joseph at his Bruen place, near by, on Robin Hood’s Bay.

September 15, 1688, the widow executes a deed of trust (New London Probate Records) giving to her son John and daughter Bathsheba the oversight and management of the entire estate of her husband (it having been left subject to her needs for her lifetime), “even my whole interest,” fully agreeing to the complete execution of her husband’s will, as relating to herself, by these two children, according to the terms of the codicil, which gives the entire estate into their hands during the lifetime of the widow. Her son-in-law, Samuel Beebe, appears to be the justice on this occasion. Two persons, not of the family, testify to her “being apparently in her right mind,” and “speaking very reasonably.” All the children have previously entered into an agreement to carry out the plan of their father, as relates to settlement out of court, by executorship of John and his guardianship, with Bathsheba, of their mother.

In this year Peter Pratt, second husband of Elizabeth Griswold, dies at Lyme, leaving her with a son who bears his name.

In this year also, Elizabeth, daughter of John Rogers, now seventeen years of age, is married, at her father’s home, to a young man named Stephen Prentis, the son of a principal planter of New London.^[60]

John Rogers, Jr., is permitted by his mother to attend the wedding of his sister. He is now, for the first time, with his father and his father’s family friends. It is an excellent opportunity for the boy of fourteen to make the acquaintance and judge of the characters of these relatives for himself. The result is that he elects to remain with his father, and soon obtains his mother’s permission to do so.^[61] Thus ends the effort to keep the grandchildren of Mr. Matthew Griswold from the contaminating influence of John Rogers.

Account of the year 1688 should not close without mention of the appearance on this scene of a young dignitary well calculated to rekindle any flickering embers on either side of this controversy. Rev. Mr. Bradstreet having died, a new minister has been hired in the person of Gurdon Saltonstall, a young man inheriting the aristocratic and autocratic spirit of a family of rank and wealth without the gentler and more liberal qualities that adorned the character of his ancestor, Sir Richard Saltonstall. Although only twenty-two years of age, he is already a rigid, uncompromising ecclesiastic, holding the authority and prestige of the Congregational church paramount, even beyond the ordinary acceptation of the time.

There is such general opposition to church taxation in the community at this very time, that an attempt has recently been made to raise funds for the Congregational church by subscription, but the amount subscribed having proved very inadequate, the old method is continued.—(Caulkins.) This shows that Congregationalism in this town is, at the best, a yoke imposed upon a majority by a powerful minority. The effort, as well as the failure, to raise church money by subscription is ominous. Should such popular indifference continue, what may not befall the true church, with “hettridoxy” let loose in the land and Rhode Islandisms further overrunning the Colony?

It cannot be long before John Rogers and the zealous young advocate of Congregational rule are carefully observing and measuring each other. Fifty years ago, Congregationalist (“Independent”) leaders cropped their hair close to their heads and eschewed fine clothing; now, forsooth, nothing is too good for them, and their curling locks (wigs) are more conspicuous than those of the Cavaliers with whom Cromwell’s Roundheads fought to the death. This young man in fine ministerial garb, and with flowing wig, whom they have called to New London to preach the unworldly Gospel of Jesus Christ, is seemingly so immature that John Rogers, the man of forty, can afford to hold his peace for a space, while he goes his way, working upon the first day of the week and resting and preaching upon the seventh. The young minister, being on trial himself, awaiting ordination, cannot for some time to come venture very conspicuously on the war-path.

1690.

In 1690, extensive improvements are made in the Congregational church meeting-house. The interior is furnished with the approved style of pews, which are, as usual, assigned to the inhabitants of the town, those paying the highest rates having the highest seats. Accordingly, John Rogers and his brothers, and all the other Seventh Day people, have seats assigned them. In addition to the minister’s rates, they are assessed for these church improvements, which include a new bell, that all may be in good style for the ordination of Mr. Saltonstall. Of course, John Rogers and his followers do not pay these “rates”; but their cattle and other goods are seized and sold at auction, none of the extra proceeds being returned to them. As yet, however, there is no disturbance, although, in addition to the new rates, the town magistrates are imposing fines and inflicting punishments, from time to time, on the seventh day observers, “at their discretion.” (The terms of imprisonment of John Rogers aggregated over fifteen years, a very much longer time than the total recorded on court records. This indicates an extraordinary exercise of the delegated power accorded to local officials in his case.^[62])

While the period of calm (upon the court records) since the last (and second) entry into the meeting-house, in 1685, is still continuing, and before the young ecclesiastic is in a position to begin his attack, let us take a general glance at the Rogers family, and first at the enterprising and wealthy Samuel Rogers, allied by marriage to some of the most prominent Congregational church members in the colony, yet himself appearing to cultivate no intimate association with the New London church, the reason for which may well be divined. He is now making active preparations for leaving New London altogether, as soon as his son Samuel is old enough to assume control of the bakery, having chosen for his future home a large tract of land in the romantic wilds of Mohegan (New London “North Parish,”—now Montville). He is a great favorite with the Mohegan chief, Owaneco, son of Uncas. The popularity of Samuel Rogers with the Indians is but one of many indications of the amiable and conciliatory character of this man. His simply standing aloof from the church against whose autocratic dictum his father and brothers judged it their duty to so strenuously rebel is characteristic of the man.

On the Great Neck, Jonathan Rogers and his wife, and those of their particular persuasion, are quietly holding their meetings on Saturday, paying their Congregational church rates with regularity, however unwillingly, and working on the first day in no very noticeable manner. There is frequent interchange of visits between them and the many relatives and friends of Naomi in Newport and Westerly.

Although Captain James and wife and Joseph and his wife seem to be adhering faithfully to the radical party, there are growing up in their family several young dissenters from the Seventh Day cause.

Samuel Beebe and his wife Elizabeth remain firm in the Sabbatarian faith.

John Rogers, Jr., although brought up in the house of Mr. Matthew Griswold and kept carefully from all Rogers contamination, works on the days upon which his father works, rests on the day when his father rests, and in all other ways follows his father’s lead.

Bathsheba Smith ardently adheres to the religious departure instituted by her father and her brothers. Her son, James Smith, is fifteen years of age at this date. He and his cousin John, Jr., are well agreed to follow on in the faith. Among the children of his aunt Bathsheba there is one dearest of all to John, Jr.; this is Bathsheba Smith the younger.

Others of the third generation of Rogerses are now old enough to begin to observe, reason and choose for themselves. It is not surprising if, by this time, quite a number of Rogers lads, of the James and Joseph families, frequently enter the Congregational church, with other young people, and sit in the pews assigned to their fathers. The principles of John Rogers, Captain James and others of their persuasion would prevent the issue of any command tending to interfere with individual judgment and action in such matters, whatever the anxious attempt to instill strictly scriptural opinions and conduct, by precept and example.

1691.

Preparations for the ordination of the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall being completed, that event transpires, November, 1691. About a month after this ceremony, occurs the first tilt on record between John Rogers and the ecclesiastic. In this instance, the gauntlet is thrown by the dissenter, in the shape of a wig, on the occasion of a “Contribution to the Ministry.”^[63]

John Rogers has, apparently, beheld the magisterial headgear of the young minister as long as he feels called upon to do so without some expression of dissent regarding such an unwarrantable sign of Christian ostentation. The unwelcome gift is a peaceable yet significant remonstrance from the leader of a sect determined from the outset to fearlessly express disapproval of any assumption of practices or doctrines in the name of the Christian religion that are foreign to the teachings and example of Christ. One would think that both minister and congregation might be thankful that the additional “rates” (such as cattle and other goods beyond all reason) forcibly taken from the dissenters to fit the Congregational church edifice for its elegant, wigged minister had not brought a delegation of Rogerenes to the meeting-house, to orally complain of being forced to assist in this ordination.

That John Rogers so graciously makes the apology, which is speedily demanded of him for this token of dissent, and assents to its immortalization upon the town records, is explainable in no other way than because it gives him an opportunity of publicly emphasizing the gift and his reasons therefor. The covertly facetious wording of this Apology, amounting in short to a full re-expression of the donor’s sentiments in durable form, is a refreshing relief amid all the tragedy of this man’s life.^[64]

After the ordination of Mr. Saltonstall, his influence in this community, as a clergyman of unusual learning and ability, is fully established. He makes many friends both in and out of the colony, as a staunch and talented advocate of Congregational church rule, especially among the clergy, which is an element of great influence in the General Court, and other courts as well. He will soon be in a position to wreak upon John Rogers dire vengeance, not only for the wig, but for that general nonconformity so likely to disturb the ecclesiastical polity which it is his purpose to vigorously and uncompromisingly maintain.

In this year “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” marries Matthew Beckwith of Lyme, a man much older than herself, and eleven years the senior of her former husband, John Rogers.

1691.

The children of James Rogers having petitioned the General Court to divide their father’s estate according to his will,—which was entered on record with their agreement thereto,—certain persons are now appointed to make this division. At the same time, the court “desire John Rogers and Bathsheba Smith doe take the part doth belong to widow Rogers under their care and dispose that a suitable maintainance for her, etc.”

1692.

In July, 1692, there is copied upon the land records a disposition by the widow of James Rogers of certain alleged rights in her husband’s estate, viz.: such rights as would have been hers by the will had there been no codicil thereto. In this document she claims a certain thirteen acres of land on the Great Neck^[65] to dispose of as she “sees fit,” also all “moveables” left by her husband, with the exception of £10 willed therefrom to her daughter Elizabeth Beebe. She states that she has already sold one-half of this thirteen acres to her son-in-law, Samuel Beebe. By this singular document, she not only completely ignores the codicil to her husband’s will (already acknowledged by herself, by the other heirs and by the probate court), but her recorded deed of trust, by which, in 1688, she placed her entire life interest in the estate in charge of John and Bathsheba, whose guardianship under the will had also, by agreement of all the children, been confirmed by the General Court.

In the month previous to this singular act of the widow, the committee appointed by the court, to divide the estate according to the will, announced their division, adding “when John and Bathsheba shall pay out of the moveable estate^[66] to Eliz. Beebe the sum of £10,” “if the widow so order,” the remainder of the estate, real and personal, shall “remain under the care and management of John and Bathsheba during their mother’s life for her honorable maintainance,” also that, after decease of the widow, the real estate and what shall remain of the personal estate be disposed of according to the will of the testator.

There was a distinct blunder in the words “if the widow so order” regarding the payment of the £10; since the will distinctly says that the £10 are to be paid by the widow to Elizabeth (“out of the moveables”) “if she sees good, with the advice of my son John,” and the codicil makes no change in regard to this clause. The report of the committee omits the advice of John in this matter, which omission probably seemed not very important to any one at the time. (It will later appear that serious results ensue from this apparently slight and inadvertent court error. See Chapter VII.)

About this time, the widow gives to Elizabeth Beebe (as afterwards appears) the estimate of the £10, in the shape of a little colored girl named Joan, who is classed in the movable estate, and she does this without “the consent of my son John.” In so doing, she not only ignores the will of her husband regarding the advice of John, but also the erroneous wording of the committee’s report that this £10 is to be paid by John and Bathsheba, at her direction. Had she but permitted these guardians and executors to pay the £10, Joan would not have figured in the transaction, it being no part of the intention of John and Bathsheba (as will later appear) that any of their father’s slaves should be sold or given away to remain in lifelong bondage. The two executors and guardians make no complaint to the court of these irregular actions on the part of their mother, or of the wrong wording of the recent report of the committee (nor shall we in any instance find them deviating by a hair’s breadth from the request of their father to make no appeal regarding his estate to earthly judges, although such appeal at this early stage would have saved incalculable trouble hereafter). However, Joan is not given over by them to Elizabeth Beebe.^[67]

Another part of the erratic document of the widow is that after her death all the “moveables” shall be divided between her son Jonathan and her daughter Elizabeth, again totally ignoring the codicil of the will, which speaks only of John, Bathsheba and Captain James as being concerned in the division of “the moveables” after her death, except that Elizabeth is to have “three cows.”^[68]

Although the widow has evidently the encouragement and assistance of Samuel Beebe in this proceeding, there is no appearance of any complicity on the part of Jonathan, who exactly conforms to the terms of the will and the executorship of John. Captain James makes no complaint to the court of the fact that Samuel Beebe is already claiming, under this procedure of the widow, a piece of land which is a part of the farm given to himself by the will, for which he is paying rent to his mother by order of the executor. He quietly makes a temporary sale of the thirteen acres to an attorney, of which sale Samuel Beebe complains (New London Records), but evidently in vain.

This is but the beginning of annoyances which certain children of James Rogers are to endure, on account of their determination not to disobey their father’s request in regard to any appeal to “earthly judges.” Little could the testator foresee that his attempt to keep his estate out of the court would be the very means of litigation, through the vagaries of his mentally diseased widow, unchecked by appeal to the court on the one hand, and encouraged by interested parties on the other.

1693.

Before the close of the year 1693, John Rogers is fined £4 for entertaining two Quakers at his house “for a month or more.” He has (by the testimony of his son, see Part I) no fellowship with these men, except as regards his concurrence in the doctrine of non-resistance and some few other particulars. For non-payment of this fine; he is in prison (and remains there well into the next year). This is but the beginning of more stringent measures than have prevailed since the disturbance of the Congregational meeting in 1685, which seems to have won a seven year’s respite from severe persecution.

As yet, the ambitious young minister, Gurdon Saltonstall, appears to have found no good opportunity for attempting to suppress this intractable man. But if John Rogers is to be prevented from continuing to scatter, broadcast, doctrines so subversive to a state church, he should be checked without further delay. In this lapse of severer and more public discipline on the part of the authorities, he has been gathering more converts from the Congregational fold, and has even grown so bold as to come into the very heart of the town to preach his obnoxious doctrines. Prominent citizens, who ought to be above countenancing him, are not only among his hearers, but among his converts.

Samuel Fox, a member of the Congregational church and one of the most prosperous business men of the place, has recently married the widow Bathsheba Smith and adopted her faith. He may be very influential in gaining more such followers, unless deterrent measures are soon taken. How long could the Congregational church be maintained, on its present footing, if such a new birth as this man describes should be required before admission; aye, if any conversion other than turning from, or avoidance of, immoral practices be generally insisted upon? Moreover, this ranting against “hireling ministers” is of itself calculated to weaken and destroy a capable and orderly ministry, to say nothing of baptism by immersion, administering the communion in the evening (after the example of Christ), the nonsensical doctrine of non-resistance, and the rest of this man’s fanatical notions, all of which, strange to say, are attracting favorable attention in intelligent quarters. There is Mr. Thomas Young, for instance, a man of the highest respectability, and allied to some of the best families in the church and the place; it is even understood that John Rogers is to be invited to preach at his house.

But what shall be done with the man? Despite the regular fine of £5, he goes right on with his baptisms and rebaptisms, sometimes on the very day he is released from imprisonment on this account. Fines and imprisonments for other offenses, also, hold him in check only so long as he is in prison. Moreover, the grand jurymen and other officials have become very indulgent regarding his offenses; certain of them appear to connive in leaving him undisturbed in his defiance of ecclesiastical laws. By what means can he be kept in durance long enough to lose his singular and growing popularity; or how can he be put out of sight and hearing altogether?

At least one aspect is encouraging; some of the Rogers young people are inclining towards the Congregational church, in spite of their elders. James, Jr., (son of Captain James), is evidently not in sympathy with the family departure. Let us make much of this young man; he seems a right sensible fellow. Joseph’s sons, with the exception of James (the eldest), appear to be well inclined also. In fact, John Rogers himself is the only one of the original dissenters who is causing any very serious disturbance nowadays. Something of this kind is likely enough to be passing in the mind of Mr. Saltonstall.

In this year, 1693, another difficulty occurs regarding the settlement of the James Rogers estate. The persons appointed to divide the land among the children according to the terms of the will have given Jonathan a farm, “with house thereon,” which was included in the lands given to Joseph by his father in 1666. Joseph (as has been shown) resigned all of this gift of land to his father in 1670, but the latter redeeded the most (or supposedly all) of it back to him in 1683. Joseph appears to have understood that this farm was included in the second deed of gift, and it is probable that his father supposed it to have been thus included, by the terms of the deed. Upon examination, however, the committee have decided that this farm remains a part of the estate of the testator, and, by the terms of the will regarding the division of the residue of land between James and Jonathan, it falls to Jonathan. Naturally, Jonathan has nothing to do but to take what is accorded to him by the decision of those to whom the division has been intrusted, who have divided it to the best of their knowledge and ability. Although Joseph is in much the same position, acquiescence in his case is far less easy. He does not find any fault with the will, but simply claims this farm as his own by the deed of gift of his father, and arbiters are appointed to decide the matter. These men appear to labor under no small difficulty in concluding to which of the two the farm should really belong, but finally decide in favor of Jonathan. Joseph is unwilling to abide by this decision, asserting that some of the evidence on the other side has not been of a fair character.^[69] Consequently the case is reopened, with considerable favor shown, on the part of the court, to the representations of Joseph. Jonathan’s part in the case is to present evidence in favor of his right to the property awarded to him; so that he cannot be said to have gone to law in the matter.

(This attempt of Joseph to regain a farm he had supposed to be his own, is the sole “contention regarding boundaries,” which was ascribed by Miss Caulkins to the “children.” It in no way concerns the executor, who had no part whatever in designating the boundaries or dividing the land. Joseph appears to have hesitated at first to make any move in the matter; the opening protest was made in 1692 by his wife, in regard to the deed by which her husband returned to his father (in 1670) the first gift of land.^[70])

1694.

The time is now come for the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall to prove what he can do, to stay the progress of this nonconformist movement under the masterly leadership of John Rogers. It is not his intention to confine his efforts to the ineffectual methods heretofore employed, the most public of which have been presentation of leading Rogerenes before the County Court, a procedure that, for some reason (at this date quite obscure), is sure to provoke the dreaded countermove, which has each time accomplished so much for the nonconformists.

The brilliant plan finally matured by Mr. Saltonstall is to capture John Rogers and imprison him at a distance from New London. As in many another contest, the fall of the leader is the death of the cause, or the longer he can be separated from his followers the more will their cause be weakened and the greater the check to his proselyting career, which is just now so alarmingly in the ascendant. There are many dignitaries who share such sentiments with Mr. Saltonstall. A satisfactory plan being matured, it can readily be carried out. Such a plan (which is gradually disclosed in the sequence of events) may be outlined as follows:

For the first part of the program, resort will be had to the old apprehension for servile labor, with arraignment before the County Court. It is presumable, according to precedent, that this will be sufficient to bring out the countermove, which will result in a large fine—with larger bond for good behavior—payment of which being refused, as it undoubtedly will be, the bird will be fully secured in its first cage.

The second part of the plan is, having caught John Rogers in some expression of doctrine or sentiment that will furnish ground for his arrest as a preacher of an unwarrantable sort, to secure his trial before the Superior Court, with adverse verdict and imprisonment in Hartford jail.

According to such a plan, John Rogers will receive a double dose that may prove effectual. The two parts of this plan take place as nearly together as possible, the first standing in abeyance until evidence is secured for the second procedure. This evidence is obtained late in the month of February, 1694, Saturday the 24th.

Upon this date, John Rogers is holding a meeting in town, in the house of Mr. Thomas Young,^[71] a gentleman nearly allied, as has been said, to some of the principal members of the Congregational church, and among them to the Christophers family, several of which family (notably Christopher and John) are very intimate friends of Mr. Saltonstall, as well as prominent officials of New London. The large number gathered to listen to this discourse indicates the drawing power of the speaker. Some of his own Society are present, including his son John. It need scarcely be said that the having interested Mr. Thomas Young so seriously is one of the offenses of which John Rogers is now conspicuously guilty.^[71] John Christophers, Daniel Wetherell (another New London official and friend of Mr. Saltonstall) and Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall enter this meeting for a sinister purpose.^[72]

The subject selected by John Rogers for his discourse on this occasion is one particularly relating to Rogerene dissent; it is the necessity of a new birth and the wonderful changes wrought in body and soul by that divine miracle.^[73] That only by such an operation of the Holy Spirit can a man become in truth one with Christ, is the burden of the theme. Not only has the speaker wealth of scriptural foundation for this discourse, but by his own conversion, so sudden and so powerful, he has internal evidence of the mysterious change set forth in the New Testament. No subject could better bring out the fervor and eloquence of the man. He declares that the body of an unregenerate person is a body of Satan, Satan having his abode therein, and that the body of a regenerate person is a body of Christ, Christ dwelling in such a body. (See account of his son, Part I, Chapter II.)

It is (and is to be) a conspicuous feature of Mr. Saltonstall’s ministry that no experience of this kind is to be considered necessary to church membership; such a test as this would never allow of that great ingathering to the state church which he desires to see firmly established and maintained.

The Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall and his accomplices do not listen to this discourse in concealment from the speaker, however they may stand apart from the hearers that gather cordially about the remarkable man in their midst. That these three men are his enemies, none know better than the keen-eyed man who beholds them there; but it may well be judged that their presence gives no tremor to his heart or his voice, but, the rather, adds nerve and emphasis.

Mr. Saltonstall, watching his opportunity, and holding the attention of his accomplices, inquires of the speaker:

“Will you say that your body is the body of Christ?”

The reply of John Rogers shows the quick wit of the man. He evidently perceives the intention to entrap him, and is, moreover, unwilling to allow the expression, which he has been using in a general way, to bear this bald, personal application, with its intended insinuation of irreverence.

“Yes, I do affirm that this human body (bringing his hand against his breast) is Christ’s body; for Christ has purchased it with His precious blood, and I am not my own, for I am bought with a price.” (See account of his son, Part I, Chapter II.)

Even thus ingeniously and reverently the speaker adheres to his affirmation that the body of a man as well as his soul belongs after regeneration to Christ and is animated by Him.

It was a reply that turned the edge of the enemy’s sarcasm and left the speaker free to continue his discourse in no way disconcerted by the trick. He now goes on to picture, with glowing face and words, the brotherhood into which the regenerate man enters; that of Christ, the firstborn of many brethren, and of the disciples and apostles. The light upon his face as he speaks may well border upon a smile, and his voice take on an exultant tone (to be called on the court record “a laughing and a flouting way”). (See Chapter V.)

From this perfectly Scriptural discourse, the spies now manage to construct a charge of blasphemy, which, under good management and by powerful influence, will aid in sending this man to Hartford prison. Red tape, however, is necessary, before this action can be brought. In the meantime, trial will be made of the other portion of the plot, which will imprison him at once in New London jail.

The very next day (Sunday, February 25, 1694), John Rogers is arrested for “carting boards,” and Samuel Fox “for catching eels on that holy day.” Both are arraigned before the County Court now in session. It is the first arraignment of this kind since 1685. During till these nine years, John Rogers and all of his Society have been working upon the first day of the week, as for the ten years previous to 1685. If the countermove now takes place, according to the plan indicated, John Rogers steps directly into the trap that has been set for him. That he does step into it is certain; that he does it without a clear understanding of the situation is by no means to be inferred. While he may not have counted upon so deeply laid a scheme as that which is shortly to develop, yet he is evidently conscious of a situation which renders it necessary that he, on his part, should act as promptly and boldly in this crisis as it appears to be the intention of his enemies to act.

(We shall soon come upon proof that the town authorities, instigated undoubtedly by the same leader and his friends, have been, for some time past, attacking—“oppressing”—not only the Rogerenes, but the regular Seventh Day Baptists, despite the quiet, compromising attitude of the latter sect; a fact so uncommon heretofore as to amount, in connection with the other appearances, to proof positive that an unusual emergency is confronting all these nonconformists at this time, and that John Rogers not only steps forward to check the advances upon his own Society, but as the champion of the Seventh Day cause at large. See “Remonstrance,” Chapter V.)

Not having paid his fine, there is now nearly a week in which John Rogers may meditate in prison before the next Sunday (March 4) arrives, which he appears to do to good purpose. In some way he manages to communicate with his ever devoted and ready sister Bathsheba, and also with his faithful Indian servant, William Wright. Evidently the 20s. fine is sufficient to keep him in prison over this Sunday, and the wait of a week longer would detract from the full force of the countermove. This difficulty must be overcome.

The next Sunday and meeting time arrives. Mr. Saltonstall’s service proceeds, to which of its many heads is uncertain. Despite the fact that his opponent is in prison, does every blast of the March wind seem to rattle the meeting-house door ominously?

Some one ought surely, and at the earliest possible moment, to make the olden move. The lot has fallen upon Bathsheba. She enters the church with (apparently) womanly modesty, simply to announce that she has been doing servile work upon this day and has come purposely to declare it. (County Court Record.) She is placed in the stocks. But the end is not yet.

John Rogers himself enters the meeting-house upon this veritable Sunday, March 4. It is in the “afternoon” (County Court Record), and, as shown by his copy of “Mittemus” (Part I, Chapter II), he has by some means escaped from prison for this purpose.

When he appears, it is in a manner calculated to excite in the preacher whose discourse is interrupted, something besides delight at the success of the latter’s masterly scheme to entrap him. He enters with a wheelbarrow load of merchandise,^[74] which he wheels directly to the front of the pulpit, before any in the assembly can sufficiently recover from their astonishment to lay hands upon him. From this commanding position he turns and offers his goods for sale.^[75] The scene that ensues before he is returned to prison must be imagined.

Upon this same Sunday, William Wright, “an Indian servant of John Rogers,” makes a “disturbance,” “outside of the meeting house,” “in time of worship.” Refusing to pay a fine for his misdemeanor, he is whipped ten stripes on the naked body. (County Court Record.)

Mr. Saltonstall has one consolation for this certainly unexpected style of entrance. He can hardly, have reckoned upon such a stupendous move to aid in securing the long incarceration of his opponent. The “Proclamation”^[76] which John Rogers soon hangs out at his prison window, to keep before the public his steadfast determination to oppose the doctrines and measures of the ruling church, is still further ground for the intended removal to Hartford and trial before that court, which is soon effected through the “Mittemus.” (Part I, Chapter II.)

On the part of John Rogers, his procedure, from beginning to end, indicates his knowledge of an important crisis, as regards the Seventh Day cause, and his judgment that the boldest move possible on his part is the wisest at this time.

[For many a year to come, there will be found no presentment at court of any of the Rogerenes for servile work upon the first day of the week. Nevertheless they do not escape. When it becomes doubtful if juries will punish them; the town authorities may be instigated to the task.

The wheelbarrow episode was an extreme measure adopted at a critical time, when, after so long a cessation of violent measures, the battle was begun anew under the leadership of Mr. Saltonstall.]