Transcriber’s Note:

With the exception of single footnote (A) appearing in the Index, all notes have been collected at the end of the text, and are linked for ease of reference.

Footnotes have been renumbered sequentially across the text for uniqueness. Three footnotes (now numbered 71, 114, and A) are referenced twice in the text.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please see the transcriber’s [note] at the end of this text for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

Any corrections are indicated using an underline highlight. Placing the cursor over the correction will produce the original text in a small popup.

Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will navigate the reader to the corresponding entry in the corrections table in the note at the end of the text.

The cover image has been modified to include information from the title page, and is placed in the public domain.

THE
ROGERENES

SOME HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED ANNALS BELONGING TO THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT

PART I.

A VINDICATION, by John R. Bolles

PART II.

HISTORY OF THE ROGERENES

BY

Anna B. Williams

APPENDIX OF ROGERENE WRITINGS

Printed for the Subscribers

Stanhope Press

F. H. GILSON COMPANY

BOSTON U.S.A.

COPYRIGHT, 1904, By ANNA B. WILLIAMS

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Published July, 1904

CONTENTS.

Note.—The only change from the original Rogerene writings in this Appendix or in the body of this work has been in omitting the old style capital letters at beginning of substantives.

INTRODUCTION.

While spending the summer at New London, in 1894, we were requested to aid Mr. John R. Bolles, in the capacity of reader and amanuensis, he being compelled, by reason of impaired sight, to depend upon such assistance. The work upon which he was engaged was a vindication of the Rogerenes. Having, from what we had read and heard concerning this colonial sect, regarded them as fanatics whose idiosyncrasies bordered upon lunacy, we could neither understand Mr. Bolle’s interest in the subject, nor why he was so willing to call public attention to the fact that certain Rogerene leaders were among his ancestors. Nevertheless we could not refuse to render the small service required of us.

The chief sources upon which Mr. Bolles depended for information were Miss Caulkin’s “History of New London” and a number of Rogerene works, nearly two hundred years old, dating from their first publication, which were in possession of family friends. It was necessary for us to read these works to Mr. Bolles. Much to our surprise, we found them to be of an exceedingly intelligent, logical character, far removed from the fantastic and visionary. Although written during periods of severest persecution, they were perfectly calm and dispassionate in tone, even in the few pages where reference was made to Rogerene sufferings “for conscience’s sake”; these being passed over, for the most part, with the remark that “it would take a large volume to contain them all.” In these volumes was almost nothing of Rogerene history; but here stood out, in bold relief, such features of Rogerene faith and principles as dearly separated this sect from other people of their day and were calculated to excite bitter enmity and opposition on the part of the ruling and popular party. It was now easy to understand why these dissenters were portrayed to their own and succeeding times as brainless enthusiasts. Those in advance of their age are as cranks and fanatics in the esteem of their contemporaries, and rumor is ever busy blackening the character of unpopular people.

The Rogerene leaders appeared, in their writings, as consistent Christians, contending, by word and example, for the religion set forth in the New Testament, a religion depending not upon the observance of forms or of days, but upon love to God and the neighbor. They maintained that the civil government had no right to dictate in matters of religion; that the Christian church had but one lawgiver and judge, the Lord Himself. The divine commands regarding religion as set forth in the New Testament they would strictly obey, but they would, “for conscience’s sake,” obey no command of men in this regard. The purely civil laws they held themselves bound to observe, according to Christ’s command. Had Sunday laws been instituted for avowedly sanitary and moral purposes, and for the convenience and protection of church-going people, none would have conformed to such laws more conscientiously than the Rogerenes, such obedience being in the line of their preaching and practice regarding the civil laws. But because they were commanded to keep this day “sacred,” as a religious duty and necessity, and such observance was accounted a vital part of a religious life, they would not join in what seemed to them to be more of the nature of heathen idolatry than of the religion instituted by Jesus Christ.

At a period when extreme regard for the first day “Sabbath” was one of the most readily accepted signs of a religious life, and no laws were more rigidly enforced than those which guarded that “sacred” day from desecration, the Rogerenes conscientiously ignored its sacredness. At a period when the materia medica was founded largely upon erroneous ideas and practices, when surgery was bungling and blundering and he who called a physician was, frequently, more liable to die of the so-called remedy than of the disease, the Rogerenes elected to trust their health and their lives to Nature and to Nature’s God, in the manner prescribed in the New Testament, and they appear to have profited by their choice.[^[1]] At a period when no men were more in favor of war than those who preached—in parts—the gospel of Him who bade His followers to forgive their enemies, to love them and pray for them and to return good for evil, the Rogerenes stood for uniform peace and good will on the part of Christians, according to the spirit and the letter of the Master’s teachings. At a period when the law called upon all to support a state church, the Rogerenes refused to pay towards the support of a church of whose teachings they largely disapproved, or to either give or take anything for a ministry which Christ established as a free gift from those gifted by Him. Driven by the intolerance of their times to protect their obnoxious sect from extinction at the hands of powerful enemies, as best they could, the Rogerenes employed, at critical periods, a peaceable yet effective mode of defense, in the line of Gospel testimony, which enraged their opponents while it kept them fairly at bay. This was the climax of their offences.

Here was enough, and more than enough, to account for the misrepresentations given of this sect.

The death of Mr. John R. Bolles occurred soon after his attempt to place the Rogerenes in a more correct light was completed. The logic employed by this author was of the best, his style was forcible, his quotations were important; but his lack of new light upon the subject in the shape of additional facts in Rogerene history was much to be regretted. It did not seem best that his work should be published until some attempt had been made to secure further authentic information. Our leisure time for a number of succeeding summers was devoted to research in this obscure direction. Thorough examination was made of the town records and records of the colonial courts of Connecticut, also of contemporary writings having any bearing upon the subject. When the mass of material thus secured was chronologically arranged, it was discovered that portions fragmentary and obscure in themselves were supplemented by other fragments, and this to such a degree that even the records of the inimical courts, where evident pains had been taken to omit particulars liable to tell for the side of the Rogerenes, aided in disclosing the true facts. As a dissected picture is made intelligible by the correct arrangement of its parts, this at first seemingly chaotic collection of fragmentary items, by a mere arrangement according to dates, resolved itself into a presentation of the Rogerene leaders as actors in a series of highly romantic scenes, in which were dearly displayed the true character and principles of these dissenters and the calumnious nature of the descriptions which had been given of them. Here were heroes and situations deserving not only the attention of historians, but that of poets and artists. Here were facts that outromanced fiction. Here was something new for lovers of old-time tales and images, and much bearing upon New England history at large, as well as remarkable examples of Christian heroism. Here were questions for the Christian scholar and statesman.

As they came to us out of the old records and writings, we present the following facts concerning the Rogerenes to readers of this generation as before a court of appeal. The enemies of this sect have said their worst of them, largely by aid of false statements. Now, for the first time, is presented, by many valid evidences, the case for the Rogerenes.

Precedence has been given in this volume, to the work of the senior author. That and the historical portion will be found largely supplementary, each of the other.

The task which Mr. Bolles had undertaken was chiefly in correction of certain erroneous statements which had been made in newspaper articles and printed sermons, issued in his locality, most of which statements had been derived from ecclesiastical authors, who had found it expedient to adopt various current representations and traditions which had appeared on the church side of the controversy rather than to enter upon any research in this matter. As will be seen, some portion of Mr. Bolle’s vindication had been published in a local paper. This is comprised in the first chapter.

In compiling the History, careful search was made for every item of reliable information concerning John Rogers and the Rogerenes, and every fact that was discovered is set plainly before the reader, in chronological order.

It would be quite possible for a reader to view the entire material that has been examined for the production of this History. The County Court records are at the county clerk’s office in Norwich. The records of the Superior Court are in the secretary’s office, in the State House, at Hartford. The records of the General Court have been published and are to be found in many public libraries. The Rogerene books still extant are very rare, so much so that they could only be seen as a whole by going here and there among the owners. The titles of these works will be found at the end of the Appendix, together with statement of where single copies may be found.

Some of the material used for the History is from “Letters of Mr. Samuel Hubbard.” The portions of these letters quoted in this work may be seen in Benedict’s “History of the Baptists.” The “Journal of William Edmundson” and “The Life and Travels of Samuel Bownas” have furnished some important particulars. These two works are rare outside of Quaker libraries. Miss Caulkin’s “History of New London,” from which quotations will be found, is in many public libraries in New England and elsewhere.

The scandalous work of Peter Pratt, “The Prey Taken from the Strong,” is in the Prince collection in the Boston Public Library and in the Massachusetts Historical Society’s Library in Boston. A copy of “The Reply of John Rogers 2nd” is in the Connecticut Historical Library at Hartford. The last half of the original manuscript of the Hempstead Diary is in the Historical Rooms at New London, while the first half is at the “Old Hempstead House,” at New London. This Diary has recently been published in book form by the New London Historical Society.

“An Account of the Debate between Rev. Mather Byles and The Brethren” of the Congregational Church of New London may be seen in the New London Public Library.

An interesting side-light was furnished by Mr. Julius F. Sachse, in his work entitled “The Ephrata Cloister,” Vol. II, Chapter IV.

As for spurious accounts of the Rogerenes to be found here and there, in ecclesiastical and town histories, the falsity of which is established in the course of this volume, mention of their authorship will be found in the places of refutation. Other minor references will be credited as they occur.

Our thanks are due to the Connecticut state librarian and his assistants, to clerks in the secretary’s office, and to Mr. Bates of the Connecticut Historical Library at Hartford, for the polite and obliging manner in which they placed before us books and manuscripts having a bearing upon this subject. Like courtesy was shown us in the county clerk’s office, in Norwich, the town clerk’s office in New London, and by the secretary of the New London Historical Society. In the Yale College Library, we were shown a copy of “An Answer to a Pamphlet,” by John Rogers, 2d, which is the only copy we have discovered.

By researches in new lines, we have discovered some mistakes regarding the Rogerenes made by that gifted and honored historian, Miss Fanny M. Caulkins. Miss Caulkins was the first historian to attempt careful and intelligent search in this obscure direction. In her “History of New London” she has given a large amount of accurate information concerning the Rogerenes, much of which is quoted with advantage, in Part First, by Mr. Bolles. It is to be hoped that we, in our turn, may be supplemented by some historian favored with sources of information unknown to ourselves, who will shed a still clearer light upon this subject, by presentation of facts outside of our own field of observation.

A. B. W.

PART I.
A VINDICATION

BY

JOHN R. BOLLES.

THE PATHWAY OF THE YEARS.

An onward path we have to tread,

We cannot see the way.

Faith, love and hope their radiance shed,

Here and thus far the years have led;

But of the steps that lie ahead

We know not one to-day.

Then pause, look back and courage take;

How bright the road appears!

Each foot that trod there helped to break

Rough places down, and for our sake

Were lived the lives that shining make

The pathway of the years.

Backward it reaches, firm and sure

The steps that trod the way,

In simple homes, with purpose pure,

Faith to inspire, hope to allure;

Men wrought for ends that still endure

And make us strong to-day.

The days to come are all unread,

Unguessed by hopes or fears;

But press with courage high ahead,

For still there grows beneath our tread,

The highway grand, by pilgrims made,

The pathway of the years.

We come of heroes! Be each soul

Loyal like theirs, and free,

A shrine of honor, a white scroll;

That, as life’s pages fresh unroll,

They who then read, may find the goal

We sought was heavenly.

Mary L. Bolles Branch.

A VINDICATION.

CHAPTER I.

This chapter contains the substance of several letters, originally published in the New London Day (1860), in reply to an article which had previously appeared in that paper, misrepresenting the teachings and conduct of the Rogerenes.

A communication in the New London Day of December 9, 1886, speaks of John Rogers and his followers, the Rogerenes, whose distinctive existence spread over a period of more than a century in the history of New London. The writer of the article referred to followed the example of his predecessors who have spoken derisively of this “sect,” either in not knowing whereof he affirmed or in purposely misrepresenting these dissenters. We prefer to ascribe the former, rather than the latter, reason.

Trumbull, in his “History of Connecticut,” charged John Rogers with crimes from which the grand jury fully exonerated him, as by its printed records may be seen. These false and scandalous charges have been reiterated, again and again, and have found a place in Barber’s “Historical Collections of Connecticut” against the clearest testimony. His withdrawal from the standing religious order of the day aroused such hatred that many false accusations were made against him, which, like dragon’s teeth sown over the land, have been springing up again and again.

The article which called forth these remarks doubtlessly derived its errors from those sources. I will point out a few of its inaccuracies.

The author says, “The Rogerenes are a sect founded by John Rogers in 1720.” John Rogers died in 1721, after a most active dissemination of his principles for a period of about fifty years, gathering many adherents during that time.

Again, he says, “They entered the churches half naked.” He must have confounded the Boston Quakers with the Rogerenes, as nothing of the kind was ever known of the latter. It is true that Trumbull makes an assertion of this sort; but even Dr. Trumbull cannot be regarded by close students as an example of accuracy—certainly not as regards Rogerene history.

The inhabitants of New London plantation were not sinners above other men. At the time James Rogers, senior, his wife, sons and daughters were thrust into prison in New London, John Bunyan was held in jail in England and said he would stay there till the moss grew over his eyebrows, before he would deny his convictions or cease to promulgate them. In the light of to-day, neither of these committed any offense whatever. Hundreds of the best of men suffered in like manner in England, and for a long period of time; and some were given over to death. The reverend father of Archbishop Leighton was, for conscience’s sake, held imprisoned for more than twelve years, and not released until his faculties, both of body and mind, were seriously impaired. Rev. John Cotton, one of Boston’s earliest preachers, came out of prison to this country. Religious thought was drenched, so to speak, with false notions, and many, even of those who had escaped from persecution in the Old World, became persecutors in the New.

Great praise is due to such men as Roger Williams, who fled from Salem to the wilderness to escape banishment for his principles, hibernating among Indians “without bed or board,” as he expressed it, and whose ultimate settlement in Rhode Island made that State the field of religious liberty. Equal praise is due to John Rogers and his associates, at a later day, for boldly enunciating the same principles, and bravely suffering in their defense, ploughing the rough soil of Connecticut and sowing the good seed there.

Nor was the treatment of the Rogerenes comparable for cruelty with that of the Quakers at Boston, a few years prior to the Rogers movement. We hear nothing of the cutting off of ears, boring the tongue with a red-hot iron, banishment, selling into slavery or punishment by death, which disgraced the civilization of the Massachusetts colony and which was Puritanism with a vengeance, almost leading us to sympathize with their persecutors in England. New London plantation was disgraced by no such heathenism as this.

St. Paul boasted that he was a citizen of no mean city. We shall find that the Rogerenes are of no mean descent, sneered at and held in derision though they have been, by men of superficial thought.

James Rogers, senior, a prosperous and esteemed business man of Milford, Conn., had dealings in New London as early as 1656, and soon after became a resident. Says Miss Caulkins:—

He soon acquired property and influence and was much employed, both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. He was six times representative to the General Court. Mr. Winthrop had encouraged his settlement in the plantation and had accommodated him with a portion of his own house lot next the mill, on which Rogers built a dwelling house of stone. He was a baker on a large scale, often furnishing biscuit for seamen and for colonial troops, and between 1660 and 1670 had a greater interest in the trade of the port than any other person in the place. His landed possessions were very extensive, consisting of several hundred acres on the Great Neck, the fine tract of land at Mohegan, called the Pamechaug Farm, several house lots in town and 2,400 acres east of the river, which he held in partnership with Col. Pyncheon of Springfield.[^[2]] Perhaps no one of the early settlers of New London numbers at the present day so great a throng of descendants. His five sons are the progenitors of as many distinct lines. His daughters were women of great energy of character. John Rogers, the third son of James, having become conspicuous as the founder of a sect, which though small in point of number has been of considerable local notoriety, requires a more extended notice. No man in New London County was at one time more noted than he; no one suffered so heavily from the arm of the law, the tongue of rumor and the pens of contemporary writers.

John and James Rogers, Jr., in the course of trade, visited Newport, R.I., and there first embraced Sabbatarian principles and were baptized in 1674; Jonathan in 1675; James Rogers, senior, with his wife and daughter Bathsheba, in 1676, and these were received as members of the Seventh Day Church at Newport.[^[3]]

As James Rogers, senior, against whom even the tongue of slander has been silent, was among the first to feel the ecclesiastical lash, a few words more concerning him from the pen of Miss Caulkins are here given:—

The elder James Rogers was an upright, circumspect man. His death occurred in February, 1688. The will is on file in the probate office in New London in the handwriting of his son John, from the preamble of which we quote.

“What I have of this world I leave among you, desiring you not to fall out about it; but let your love one to another appear more than to the estate I leave with you, which is but of this world; and for your comfort I signify to you that I have a perfect assurance of an interest in Jesus Christ and an eternal happy estate in the world to come, and do know and see that my name is written in the book of life, and therefore mourn not for me as they that are without hope.”

Hollister, in his “History of Connecticut,” speaks of James Rogers in high terms; although, in an evidently faithful following of historical errors, he gives the common estimate of John Rogers and his followers. Says Miss Caulkins:—

In 1676 the fines and imprisonments of James Rogers and his sons, for profanation of the Sabbath,[^[4]] commenced. For this and for neglect of the established worship, they and some of their followers were usually arraigned at every session of the court, for a long course of years. The fine was at first five shillings, then ten shillings, then fifteen shillings. At the June court,1677, the following persons were arraigned and each fined £5:--James Rogers, senior, for high-handed, presumptuous profanation of the Sabbath, by attending to his work; Elizabeth Rogers, his wife, and James and Jonathan, for the same. John Rogers, on examination, said he had been hard at work making shoes on the first day of the week, and he would have done the same had the shop stood under the window of Mr. Wetherell’s house; yea, under the window of the meeting house. Bathsheba Smith, for fixing a scandalous paper on the meeting house. Mary, wife of James Rogers, junior, for absence from public worship.

Again, in September, 1677, the court ordered that John Rogers should be called to account once a month and fined £5 each time; others of the family were amerced to the same amount, for blasphemy against the Sabbath, calling it an idol, and for stigmatizing the reverend ministers as hirelings. After this, sitting in the stocks and whipping were added.

This correspondent says, “The Rogerenes despised the authority of law.” But only that which infringed upon their natural rights and honest convictions of duty. To all other laws they were obedient. Says Miss Caulkins:—

John Rogers maintained obedience to the civil government, except in matters of conscience and religion. A town or county rate the Rogerenes always considered themselves bound to pay; but the minister’s rate they abhorred, denouncing as unscriptural all interference of the civil power in the worship of God.

The Rogerenes were the first in this State to denounce the doctrine of taxation without representation, the injustice of which is now universally acknowledged. All their offences may be traced to a determination to withstand and oppose ecclesiastical tyranny. Pioneers in every great enterprise are sufferers, and pioneers in thought are no exception to this rule. Other men have labored, and we have entered into their labors. That principle for which these heroes and heroines so valiantly and faithfully contended, in the grim face of suffering and hate, the total divorcement of Church and State, is now established. Has it not become the boast and glory of the nation, the torch of liberty held aloft in the face of the world? And does it not show the march of civilization that the right of all to equal religious freedom, then so obnoxious, is now fully confessed and sweet to the ear as chime of silver bells?

The venerable James Rogers, senior, with his wife, three sons and two daughters, were, as we have seen, arraigned and fined £5 each at one session of the court, within two years from the time of their alliance with the Seventh Day Baptist Church of Newport. Other arraignments followed, and in the case of John Rogers, the court ordered that he should be called to account every month and fined £5 each time. Draco’s laws were said to have been written in blood; Caligula set his on poles so high they could not be read; but it was reserved for a New England court, in the perilous times of which we are speaking, to pass sentence before the offense was committed or trial had!

Nor have we but just entered into the vestibule of that temple of ignorance, tyranny, and crime, which, even in the New London plantation, reared its front and trailed its long shadow down a century. But on the ashes of oppression thrives the tree of liberty. Religious freedom was then emerging from the incrustation of ages, as the bird picks its way through the shell to light and beauty. Whippings and sittings in the stocks afterwards took place, yet we hear of but a single attempt on the part of the Rogerenes to interrupt the public worship of their enemies, until nearly eight years of persecution had elapsed, and it should be remembered that such interruption was not uncommon in those days; Quakers doing the same in Boston, under like treatment.

We quote from the records of the court, 1685:—

John Rogers, James Rogers, Jr., Samuel Beebe, Jr., and Joanna Way are complained of for profaning God’s holy day with servile work, and are grown to that height of impiety as to come at several times into the town to rebaptise several persons; and, when God’s people were met together on the Lord’s Day to worship God, several of them came and made great disturbance, behaving themselves in such a frantic manner as if possessed with a diabolical spirit, so affrighting and amazing that several women swooned and fainted away.[^[5]] John Rogers to be whipped fifteen lashes and for unlawfully re-baptising, to pay £5. The others to be whipped.

The Quakers at Boston had been charged with having a similar spirit, and, almost simultaneously with this complaint, witches, so-called, were hung at Salem. Mr. Burroughs, a preacher, being a small man, was charged with holding out a long-barrelled gun straight with one hand. He defended himself by saying that an Indian did the same thing. “Ah! that’s the black man!” said the judge, meaning the devil helped him do the deed. Burroughs was hung! It was said of Jesus of Nazareth, “He hath a devil.”

There was no printing-press at that time in New London, and had there been it would have served the will of the dominant power, not that of the persecuted few. Bathsheba Smith had been previously fined £5 for attaching a paper to the side of the meeting-house, setting forth their grievances. If John Rogers had undertaken to harangue an audience in the street, it might have been regarded as a still greater offense. It may be said to be an unlawful act to present their case and assert their rights in this manner; but an unlawful act is sometimes justified by circumstances. It would be an unlawful act to go to your neighbor’s house in the night, knock loudly at his door, disturb the inmates and call out to them while quietly sleeping in their beds; but, if the house were on fire, it would be a right and merciful act. Great exigencies justify extraordinary conduct. What would be wrong under certain conditions would be right under others.

It may be said that this course would not be tolerated at the present day. Neither, we add, would the acts that led to it. The prophet was at one time commanded to speak unto the people, whether they would hear or whether they would forbear. With our imperfect knowledge of the circumstances of the case, it may be impossible, at this date, to judge rightly of its merits. Elizabeth Rogers was charged with stigmatizing the reverend clergy as hirelings, and with calling the Sabbath an idol. She was fined five pounds. There was not much freedom of speech in those days. As to calling the Sabbath an idol, that was no more than saying it was unduly reverenced. It was so among the Jews, at the time our Saviour endeavored to disabuse them of the fallacy and to teach them that “the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” The brazen serpent ordained of God for the healing of the people, when it became an object of idolatrous worship, was ordered to be taken to pieces.

Miss Caulkins says:—

One of the most notorious instances of contempt exhibited by Rogers against the religious worship of his fellow-townsmen was the sending of a wig to a contribution made in aid of the ministry.

This was in derision of the full-bottomed wigs then worn by the Congregational clergy.

We sympathize with him in his contempt of the ornament, if such it may be called, of which the portraits of the Rev. Mr. Saltonstall present a rich specimen. An ancient bishop refused to administer the rite of baptism to one thus garnitured, saying, “Take that thing away; I will not bless the head of a dead man.” John Rogers made an apologetic confession of this offense, which may be seen upon the town records to-day, viz.:—

Whereas I, John Rogers of New London, did rashly and unadvisedly send a periwigg to the contribution of New London, which did reflect dishonor upon that which my neighbors, ye inhabitants of New London, account the ways and ordinances of God and ministry of the Word, to the greate offense of them, I doe herebye declare that I am sorry for the sayde action and doe desire all those whom I have offended to accept this my publique acknowledgment as full satisfaction.

John Rogers.

A young man, sensible that his life had not been what it ought to have been, and resolving upon amendment, sought his father and made frank acknowledgment of his faults. Having done so, he said, “Now, father, don’t you think you ought to confess a little to me?” We think some confessions were also due from the other side.

The nest in which is hatched the bird of Jove is built of rough sticks and set in craggy places. Again, it is stirred up that the young eaglet may spread its wings and seek the sun. The victor’s laurels are not cheaply gained; conflict and struggle are the price. Sparks flash from collision. Lightnings cleanse the air. The geode is broken to free the gem that lies within. Diamonds are cut and polished ere they shed forth their splendor. Great good is usually ushered in by great labor and sacrifice. It is so with liberty. Let us tread about its altars with reverence, with unshod feet; altars from which have ascended flames so bright as to illumine earth, and offerings so sweet as to propitiate heaven. The unjust and tyrannical laws by which the early battlers for religious freedom in this section were assailed have long since been erased from the statutes of the State. The tide of public sentiment had swollen to such height, in which all denominations except the standing order were a unit, that they were wiped out, and their existence was made impossible in the future. That the Rogerene movement largely contributed to bring about this result will be shown. Of the hardships, loss of liberty, loss of property, etc., which the Rogerenes endured for conscience’s sake, Miss Caulkins speaks thus:—

Attempts were made to weary them out and break them up by a series of fines, imposed upon presentments of the grand jury. These fines were many times repeated, and the estates of the offenders melted under the seizures of the constable as snow melts before the sun. The course was a cruel one and by no means popular. At length, the magistrates could scarcely find an officer willing to perform the irksome task of distraining.

The demands of collectors, the brief of the constable, were ever molesting their habitations. It was now a cow, then a few sheep, the oxen at the plow, the standing corn, the stack of hay, the threshed wheat, and, anon, piece after piece of land, all taken from them to uphold a system which they denounced.

Further details of their sufferings will be omitted in this place; but the famous suit of Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall against John Rogers demands and shall receive dose attention.

It was while Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall was minister of the church of New London, and through his influence, that John Rogers was expatriated, so to speak, and mercilessly confined three years and eight months in the jail at Hartford, “as guilty of blasphemy.” Shortly after his release, Rev. Mr. Saltonstall brought a suit against John Rogers for defaming his character. The following is the record of the court:—

At a session of the County Court, held at New London, September 20th, 1698, members of the court, Capt. Daniel Wetherell, esq., Justices William Ely and Nathaniel Lynde, Mr. Gurdon Saltonstall, minister of the gospel, plf. pr. contra John Rogers, Sr., def’t, in an action of the case for defamation.

Whereas you, the said John Rogers, did some time in the month of June last, raise a lying, false and scandalous report against him, the said Mr. Gurdon Saltonstall, and did publish the same in the hearing of diverse persons, that is to say, did, in their hearing, openly declare that the said Saltonstall, having promised to dispute with you publicly on the holy Scriptures, did, contrary to his said engagement, shift or wave the said dispute which he promised you, which said false report he, the said Saltonstall, complaineth of as to his great scandal and to his damage unto such value as shall to the said court be made to appear. In this action the jury finds for the plaintiff £600 and costs of court £1 10s.

The £600 damages, equal perhaps to $10,000 at the present day, was not more remarkable than the suit itself, which had no legal foundation. Lorenzo Dow tells “how to lie, cheat and kill according to law.” But here is a deed—ought we not to call it a robbery?—done under cover, without the authority, of law. For the words alleged to have been spoken, action of slander was not legal. That this may be made clear to the general reader, we quote the language of the law from Selwyn’s “Digest”:—

An action on the case lies against any person for falsely and maliciously speaking and publishing of another, words which directly charge him with any crime for which the offender is punishable by law. In order to sustain this action it is essentially necessary that the words should contain an express imputation of some crime liable to punishment, some capital offense or other infamous crime or misdemeanor. An imputation of the mere defect or want of moral virtues, moral duties, or obligations is not sufficient.

To call a man a liar is not actionable; but the offensive words charged upon Rogers do not necessarily impute as much as this. There might have been a mistake or a misunderstanding on both sides, or Mr. Saltonstall may, for good reason, have changed his purpose. No crime was charged upon him, which we have seen is necessary to support the action. “Where the words are not actionable in themselves and the only ground of action is the special damage, such damage must be proved as alleged.” In this case no special damage, is alleged and of course none proved. The causes of the suit were too trifling for further discussion. Falsehood need not rest upon either. Duplicity was no part of Roger’s character, and, since we have spoken a word for him, we will let the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall speak for himself, as quoted by Mr. McEwen in his “Bi-Centennial Discourse”:—

“There never was,” said Gov. Saltonstall in a letter to Sir Henry Ashurst, “for this twenty years that I have resided in this government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this people.”

We may suppose that Mr. Saltonstall thought he had done a brilliant act, to recover from John Rogers a sum equal to about six year’s salary. But there are scales that never grow rusty and dials that do not tire. Time, the great adjuster of all things, will have its avenges.

While the least peccadilloes of the Rogerenes have been searched out as with candles and published from pulpit and from press, no one of their enemies has ever found it convenient to name this high-handed act of oppression, as shown in the suit referred to. Perhaps they have viewed it in the light that the Scotchman did his text, when he said, “Brethren, this is a very difficult text; let us look it square in the face and pass on.” They may not even have looked it in the face.

Last, if not least, of the unauthenticated anecdotes narrated by Mr. McEwen of the Rogerenes, in his half-century sermon, which we would not care to unearth, but which has recently been republished in The Outlook, is here given:—

One of this sect, who was employed to pave the gutters of the streets, prepared himself with piles of small stones, by the wayside, that when Mr. Adams was passing to church, he might dash them into the slough, to soil the minister’s black dress. But, getting no attention from the object of his rudeness, who simply turned to avoid the splash, the nonplussed persecutor cried out, “Woe unto thee, Theophilus, Theophilus, when all men speak well of thee!”

When we remember that Mr. Adam’s name was not Theophilus, and that, if it was on Sunday that the preacher was going to church, the gutters would not have been in process of paving, a shadow of doubt falls upon this story.

But Mr. McEwen throws heavier stones at the Rogerenes, which we are compelled to notice, and shall see what virtue there is in them.

Why, in speaking of the Rogerenes, in his half-century sermon, does he say: “To pay taxes of any sort grieved their souls”? when they were so exact to render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s? Miss Caulkins fully exonerates them from this charge. We repeat her words:—

He (John Rogers) maintained also obedience to the civil government, except in matters of conscience and religion. A town or county rate the Rogerenes always considered themselves bound to pay; but the minister’s rate they abhorred.

Why should they not? Would not the Congregational church at that time have abhorred such a tax imposed upon them to support the Baptist ministry? Until we are willing to concede to others the rights that we claim for ourselves, we are not the followers of Him who speaketh from heaven. But the most glaring wrong done to these dissenters by the standing order, outvying perhaps Gov. Saltonstall’s groundless suit for damages, is found in the course taken by the magistrates, unrebuked, who, however small was the fine or however large the value of the property distrained, returned nothing to the victims of their injustice.

Says John Rogers, Jr.:—

For a fine of ten shillings, the officer first took ten sheep, and then complained that they were not sufficient to answer the fine and charges, whereupon, he came a second time and took a milch cow out of the pasture, and so we heard no more about it, by which I suppose the cow and the ten sheep satisfied the fine and charges.

As showing the absurd and unjust treatment that John Rogers endured at the hands of the civil and ecclesiastical power, we quote from Miss Caulkins. Clearly he was right with regard to the jurisdiction of the court:—

In 1711, he was fined and imprisoned for misdemeanor in court, contempt of its authority and vituperation of the judges. He himself states that his offense consisted in charging the court with injustice for trying a case of life and death without a jury. This was in the case of one John Jackson, for whom Rogers took up the battle axe. Instead of retracting his words, he defends them and reiterates the charge. Refusing to give bonds for his good behavior until the next term of court, he was imprisoned in New London jail. This was in the winter season and he thus describes his condition:—

“My son was wont in cold nights to come to the grates of the window to see how I did, and contrived privately to help me to some fire, etc. But he, coming in a very cold night, called to me, and perceiving that I was not in my right senses, was in a fright, and ran along the street, crying, ‘The authority hath killed my father’; upon which the town was raised, and forthwith the prison doors were opened and fire brought in, and hot stones wrapt in cloth and laid at my feet and about me, and the minister Adams sent me a bottle of spirits, and his wife a cordial, whose kindness I must acknowledge.

“But when those of you in authority saw that I recovered, you had up my son and fined him for making a riot in the night, and took, for the fine and charge, three of the best cows I had.”

John Bolles, born in 1677, a disciple of John Rogers, in his book entitled “True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to No Flesh,” makes this statement, on page 98:—

To my knowledge, was taken from a man, only for the costs of a justice’s court and court charge of whipping him for breach of the Sabbath (so-called) a mare worth a hundred pounds, and nothing returned, and this is known by us yet living, to have been the general practice in Connecticut.

His biographer adds, “Mr. Bolles was doubtless that man.”

We quote further from John Bolles:—

And as he (John Rogers) saith hitherto, so may we say now, fathers taken from their wives and children, without any regard to distance of place, or length of time. Sometimes fathers and mothers both taken and kept in prison, leaving their fatherless and motherless children to go mourning about the streets.

When a poor man hath had but one milch cow for his family’s comfort, it hath been taken away; or when he hath had only a small beast to kill for his family, it hath been taken from him, to answer a fine for going to a meeting of our own society, or to defray the charges of a cruel whipping for going to such a meeting, or things of this nature. Yea, £12 or £14 worth of estate hath been taken to defray the charges of one such whipping, without making any return as the law directs. And this latter clause in the law is seldom attended.

Yea, fourscore and odd sheep have been taken from a man, being all his flock; a team taken from the plough, with all its furniture, and led away. But I am not now about giving a particular account; for it would contain a book of a large volume to relate all that hath been taken from us, and as unreasonable and boundless as these.

Mr. McEwen says derisively:—

Their goods were distrained; their cattle were sold at the post, and some of their people were imprisoned. But, emulating the example of the apostles, they took joyfully the spoiling of their goods; yea, they gloried in bonds and imprisonment.

It was not the apostles, but the Hebrews, to whom the apostle wrote, who took joyfully the spoiling of their goods. A small matter, it may seem, to correct; but accuracy of Scripture quotation may be a Rogerene trait, and the writer will be proud if it be said, “Surely, thou art also one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”

The subject on which we have entered opens and broadens and deepens before us, blending with all history and all truth. It is not exceptional, it is not isolated. It may not be blotted from memory, as it cannot be blotted from existence, painfully interwoven as it is with the mottled fabric of time. The world’s greatest benefactors have often been its greatest sufferers. Socrates was made to drink the fatal hemlock, for not believing in the gods acknowledged by the state. Seneca, the moralist, was put to death by his ungrateful pupil, Nero. The first followers of Christ were persecuted, tortured and slain by the heathen world. Attaining to civil power, Christians treated in like manner their fellow Christians. Ecclesiastical history, wherever there has been an alliance of church and state, is blackened with crimes and cruelties too foul to be named. Recall the nameless horrors of the Inquisition, perpetrated under such rule. Think of Smithfield and the bloody queen.

Is it to be wondered at that the Rogerenes, meeting persecution at every turn, should have been aroused to a sublimity of courage, perhaps of defiance, against the tide of intolerance which had swept over the ages and was now wildly dashing its unspent waves across their path? Not until more than a century later did the potent word of Christian enlightenment go forth, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.”

Passing a period of fifty years, darkened with wrongs and cruelties, the following notice of whipping is here given. It is necessary to present facts, that we may form a true judgment of the character and mission of this sect, which had at least the honor, like that of the early Christians, of being “everywhere spoken against.”

From the “Life of John Bolles” we take the following:—

I have before me a copy of the record of proceedings, in July, 1725, before Joseph Backus, Esq., a magistrate of Norwich, Conn., against Andrew Davis, John Bolles, and his son Joseph Bolles (a young man of twenty-four years), John Rogers (the younger), Sarah Culver and others, charged with Sabbath breaking, by which it appears that for going on Sunday, from Groton and New London, to attend Baptist worship in Lebanon, they were arrested on Sunday, imprisoned till the next day and then heavily fined, the sentence being that if fine and costs were not paid they should be flogged on the bare back for non-payment of fine, and then lie in jail till payment of costs. As none of them would pay, they were all flogged, the women as well as the men, John Bolles receiving fifteen stripes and each of the others ten.

According to the statement of one of the sufferers, Mary Mann of Lebanon wished to be immersed, and applied to John Rogers (the younger) and his society for baptism. Notice was publicly posted some weeks beforehand that on Monday, July 26th, 1725, she would be baptised and that a religious meeting would be held in Lebanon on Sunday, July 25th, “the day,” says Rogers, “on which we usually meet, as well as the rest of our neighbors.”[^[6]] When the Sunday came, a company of Baptists, men and women, from Groton and New London, set out for Lebanon, by the county road that led through Norwich. The passage through Norwich was so timed as not to interfere with the hours of public worship. After they had passed through the village, they were pursued and stopped, brought back to Norwich, imprisoned until Monday, and then tried, convicted and sentenced for Sabbath breaking. It must be added that a woman who was thus stripped and flogged was pregnant at the time, and that the magistrate who ordered the whipping stood by and witnessed the execution of the sentence. This outrage was much talked of throughout New England, and led to the publication of divers proclamations and pamphlets.

Deputy Governor Jenks, of Rhode Island, the following January, having obtained a copy of the proceedings against Davis and the others, ordered it to be publicly posted in Providence, to show the people of Rhode Island “what may be expected from a Presbyterian government,” and appended to it an indignant official proclamation.

Governor Jenk’s Proclamation.

I order this to be set up in open view, in some public place, in the town of Providence, that the inhabitants may see and be sensible of what may be expected from a Presbyterian government, in case they should once get the rule over us. Their ministers are creeping in amongst us with adulatious pretense, and declare their great abhorrence to their forefather’s sanguinary proceedings with the Quakers, Baptists and others. I am unwilling to apply Prov. xxvi, 25, to any of them; but we have a specimen of what has lately been acted in a Presbyterian government, which I think may suppose it sits a queen and shall see no sorrow. I may fairly say of some of the Presbyterian rulers and Papists, as Jacob once said of his two sons, Gen. xlix, 5 and 6 verses, “They are brethren, instruments of cruelty are in their habitations! O, my soul, come not thou into their secret! Unto their assembly, mine honor, be thou not united!” Amos v, 7, “They who turn judgment into wormwood and leave off righteousness in the earth.” Chapter vi, 12, “For they have turned judgment into gall, and the fruit of righteousness into hemlock!” And I think in whomsoever the spirit of persecution restest there cannot be much of the spirit of God. And I must observe that, notwithstanding the Presbyterian pretended zeal to a strict observance of a first day Sabbath was such that those poor people might not be suffered to travel from Groton to Lebanon on that day, on a religious occasion, as hath been minded, but must be apprehended as gross malefactors and unmercifully punished; yet, when a Presbyterian minister, which hath a great fame for abilities, hath been to preach in the town of Providence, why truly then the Presbyterians have come flocking in, upon the first day of the week, to hear him, from Rehoboth, and the furthest parts of Attleborough, and from Killingly, which is much further than John Rogers and his friends were travelling; and this may pass for a Godly zeal; but the other must be punished for a sinful action. Oh! the partiality of such nominal Christians!

Joseph Jenks, Dep. Gov.

CHAPTER II.

In the contemplation of noble deeds, we become more noble, and by the just anathematizing of error our love of truth is made stronger. As the bee derives honey from nauseous substances, so we would extract good even from wrongdoing. It is with no spirit of animosity towards any one that we pursue this subject.

No word of palliation for the acts of the Rogerenes, no admission of wrong done to them by their opponents, is heard from the ecclesiastical side. Perhaps even the severity of the statements made against them may be an evidence in their favor.

The Rev. Mr. Saltonstall began his ministry in New London in 1688, at the age of twenty-two. This was about twelve years after the prosecutions against the Rogers family, for non-conformity, had commenced. In 1691, he was ordained, and continued to preach until 1708, when he was chosen governor of the State and abandoned the ministry altogether. Bred in the narrow school of ecclesiasticism, and of a proud and dominant spirit, the day-star of religious liberty seems not even to have dawned upon his mind.

He was virulent in his enmity to John Rogers from the beginning. The Furies have been said to relent; his rancor showed no abatement.

In 1694, he presented charges of blasphemy against John Rogers, without the knowledge of the latter, and while he was confined in New London jail. We copy the following extract, from a statement made by John Rogers, Jr., writing in defence of his father, which shows how closely he was watched by his adversaries, that they might find grounds of accusation against him.

Peter Pratt, of whom we shall say more hereafter, an author mainly quoted by historians on the subject we are discussing, in a pamphlet traducing the character of John Rogers, and written after his death, had said of his treatment in Hartford: “His whippings there were for most audacious contempt of authority; his sitting on the gallows was for blasphemous words.”

To which John Rogers, Jr., thus replies:—

First, he asserts that his whippings there—viz., at Hartford—“were for most audacious contempt of Authority”; but doth not inform the reader what the contempt was; making himself the judge, as well as the witness, whereas it was only his business to have proved what the contempt was, and to have left the judgment to the reader.

And forasmuch as his assertion is altogether unintelligible, so may it reasonably be expected that my answer must be by supposition, and is as follows:—

“I suppose he intends that barbarous cruelty which was acted on John Rogers, while he was a prisoner at Hartford, in the time of his long imprisonment above mentioned, which was so contrary to the laws of God and kingdom of England, that I never could find that they made a record of that matter, according to Christ’s words, John iii, 20, ‘For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,’ etc.

“But John Rogers has given a large relation about it, as may be seen in his book entitled, ‘A Midnight Cry.’ From pages 12-15, where he asserts that he was taken out of Prison, he knew not for what, and tied to the Carriage of a great gun, where he had seventy-six stripes on his naked body, with a whip much larger than the lines of a drum, with knots at the end as big as a walnut, and in that maimed condition was returned to prison again; and his bed, which he had hired at a dear rate, taken from him, and not so much as straw allowed him to lie on, it being on the eighteenth day of the eighth month, called October, and very cold weather.”

And although myself, with a multitude of spectators, who were present at Hartford and saw this cruel act, can testify to the truth of the account which he gives of it, yet I cannot inform the reader on what account it was that he suffered it, or what he was charged with; for, as I said before, I never could find a record of that matter.

But if it was for contempt of Authority, as Peter Pratt asserts, then I think those that inflicted such a punishment were more guilty of contempt against God than John Rogers was of contempt against the Authority; for God in his holy law has strictly commanded Judges not to exceed forty stripes on any account, as may be seen, Deut. xxv, 3, “So that for Judges to exceed forty stripes is high contempt against God.”

In the next place, he adds that “his sitting on the gallows was for blasphemous words.”

Reply:—

Here again he ought to have informed the reader what the words were, which doubtless would have been more satisfaction to the reader than for Peter Pratt to make himself both witness and judge, and so leave nothing for the reader to do but to remain as ignorant as before they saw his book.

And he might as well have said of the Martyr Stephen that his suffering was for blasphemous words, as what he says of John Rogers, for it was but the judgment of John Roger’s persecutors that the words were blasphemous, and so it was the judgment of the Martyr Stephen’s persecutors that he was guilty of speaking blasphemous words, as may be seen, Acts vi, 13, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words,” etc. Whereupon they put him to death.

In the next place, I shall give the reader an account of what these words were for which John Rogers was charged with blasphemy; the account of which here follows:—

He being at a house in New London where there were many persons present, was giving a description of the state of an unregenerate person, and also of the state of a sanctified person; wherein he alleged that the body of an unregenerate person was a body of sin, and that Satan had his habitation there. And, on the contrary, that the body of a sanctified person was Christ’s body, and that Christ dwelt in such a body.

Whereupon, one of the company asked him whether he intended the humane body, to which he replied that he did intend the humane body. Whereupon, the person replied again, “Will you say that your humane body is Christ’s body?” to which he replied, clapping his hand on his breast, “Yes, I do affirm that this humane body 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.”

Whereupon, two of the persons present gave their testimony as follows: “We being present, saw John Rogers clap his hand on his breast and say, ‘This is Christ’s humane body.’” But they omitted the other words which John Rogers joined with it.

And because I was very desirous to have given those testimonies out of the Secretary’s Office, I took a journey to Hartford on purpose but the Secretary could not find them; yet, forasmuch as myself was present, both when the words were spoken, and also at the trial at Hartford, I am very confident that I have given them verbatim. And whether or no this was blasphemy, I desire not to be the judge, but am willing to leave the judgment to every unprejudiced reader.

The words of John Rogers were perfectly scriptural, as will be understood by every intelligent reader of the Bible.

The Apostle speaks of the church as the body of Christ. Again, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” And other passages to the same effect.

The cry of blasphemy has been a favorite device with murderers and persecutors in all ages.

When Naboth was set on high by Ahab to be slain, proclamation was made, “This man hath blasphemed God and the King.”

“For a good work we stone you not,” said the Jews to Christ, “but for blasphemy.” And the high priest said of Christ himself, “What need we any further witness? Have we not heard his blasphemy from his own mouth?”

Miss Caulkins, in her “History of New London,” although inclined to favor the ecclesiastical side, says: “The offences of the Rogerenes were multiplied and exaggerated, both by prejudice and rumor. Doubtless a sober mind would not now give so harsh a name to expressions which our ancestors deemed blasphemous.”

It will be remembered that in 1677, “the court ordered that John Rogers should be called to account once a month and fined £5 each time,” irrespective of his innocence or guilt, and without trial of either. This unrighteous order would seem to have been in force fifteen years later, viz., in November, 1692. “At that time,” says Miss Caulkins, “besides his customary fines for working on the Sabbath and for baptizing, he was amerced £4 for entertaining Banks and Case (itinerant exhorters) for a month or more at his house.”—“Customary fines!”

In the spring of 1694, Rogers was transferred from the New London to the Hartford Prison. Why was this transfer made? Perhaps that the charges of blasphemy brought against him might with more certainty be sustained where he was not known. Perhaps that the sympathies of the people would not be as likely to find expression there as they sometimes did at his outrageous treatment in New London; as will be seen. Or, by a more rigorous treatment he might be made to submit.

In Hartford he was placed in charge of a cruel and unprincipled jailer, who was entirely subservient to the will of his enemies, and who told John Rogers he would make him comply with their worship, if the authorities could not.

What prompted, we might ask, the unusual and merciless treatment that he received during this imprisonment at Hartford? He had not offended the authorities nor the people there; he was a stranger in their midst. The same remorseless spirit that had delivered him up to them as guilty of blasphemy was doubtless the moving, animating cause of such savage conduct. Scarcely four months had elapsed after his release from the Hartford prison where he had been confined nearly four years, before the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall brought a suit of defamation against him, for the most trivial reasons, as we have seen (Chapter I), and upon no legal grounds whatever; yet a parasitical jury awarded the august complainant damages in the unconscionable sum of £600. Of this proceeding, Miss Caulkins, in her “History of New London,” says: “Rogers had not been long released from prison, before he threw himself into the very jaws of the lion, as it were, by provoking a personal collision with Mr. Saltonstall, the minister of the town.”

“Jaws of the lion!” Perhaps Miss Caulkins builded wiser than she knew. We had not ourselves presumed to characterize Mr. Saltonstall as the king of beasts; but, since John Rogers, so far as we know, was never charged with deviation from the truth, except in the above mentioned suit, while the Rev. Mr. Saltonstall was not above suspicion, as will appear by the false charge of blasphemy he brought against Rogers, and by other acts of which we shall speak hereafter, we will leave the reader to judge on which side the truth lay in this case.

It should be remembered that years had elapsed after the fines, imprisonments, etc., of Rogers had commenced—for non-attendance at the meetings of the standing order, for baptizing, breach of the Sabbath, etc.—before he was charged with entering the meeting-house in time of public worship and remonstrating there with the people. It was not in self-defence alone, it was in defence of justice that he spoke. Who were the first aggressors? Who disturbed him in the performance of the baptismal rites? Who interfered with his meetings? Who entered them as spies, to lay the foundation for suits against him? These things have not been referred to; they have not been confessed; they have not been apologized for, on the part of the standing order. If John Rogers was such a terrible sinner for what he did to them, how much greater accountability will they have to meet who, without any just cause, made their attack upon him!

There are fires burning in the heart of every good man that cannot be quenched. As well undertake to smother the rays of the sun or to confine ignited dynamite. We would not justify breach of courtesy, or any other law not contrary to the law of God; but there are times when to be silent would be treason to truth.

John Roger’s father was the largest taxpayer in the colony, and had himself alone been subjected to the payment of one-tenth part of the cost of building the meeting-house, while John Rogers and his adherents, who were industrious, frugal, and thrifty people—or they never could have sustained the immense fines imposed upon them without being brought to abject poverty—had probably paid as much more; so we may suppose that at least one-fifth of the meeting-house, strictly speaking, belonged to them, while they were constantly being taxed for the support of this church of their persecutors.

The meeting-house was, in those times, quite often used for public purposes; in fact, the courts were frequently held there. How, upon a week day, could he have found an audience of his persecutors, or permission to address them? If he had published a circular it would have been deemed a scandalous paper, for which he might have been fined and imprisoned. He could scarcely get at the ear of the people in any other way than by the course he took, and he could in no other way put as forcible a check upon the church party persecutions of his own sect.

There are volcanoes in nature; may there not be such in the moral world? Who knows but they are safety valves to the whole system. It cannot be denied that the church gave ample and repeated occasion to call from these reformers something more than the sound of the lute. These moral upheavings must tend to a sublime end, and like adversity have their sweet uses. We are now breathing the fragrance of the flower planted in the dark soil of those turbulent times. Of the Puritanism of New England, we must say it is bespattered with many a blot, which ought not to be passed over with zephyrs of praise. “Fair weather cometh out of the north. Men see not the bright light in the cloud. The wind passeth over and cleanseth them.” Let us revere the names of all who, in the face of suffering and loss, have dared to stand up boldly in truth’s defence.

To impress men to haul an apostle of liberty from jail to jail, break into the sanctity of family relations, imprison fathers and mothers, purloin their property, for no just cause whatever, leaving their children to cry in the streets for bread, and this under the cloak of religion, is an offence incomparably greater than to make one’s voice heard in vindication of truth, even in a meeting-house.

The offences of John Rogers, whatever they may have been, encountering opposition with opposition, in which facts were the only swords, and words the only lash, are as insignificant as the fly on the elephant’s back compared with the treatment that he and his followers received from those who had fled from persecution in the Old World to stain their own hands with like atrocities in the New.

Of the almost unprecedented suffering and cruelties which John Rogers endured for conscience’s sake, and in the cause of religious freedom, for many years, and particularly of his confinement in the Hartford prison, he here tells the story, written by himself about twelve years after his release from that prison. See “Midnight Cry,” pages 4-16:—

Friends and Brethren:—

I have found it no small matter to enter in at the straight gate and to keep the narrow way that leads unto life; for it hath led me to forsake a dear wife and children, yea, my house and land and all my worldly enjoyment, and not only so, but to lose all the friendships of the world, yea, to bury all my honor and glory in the dust, and to be counted the off-scouring and filth of all things; yea, the straight and narrow way hath led me into prisons, into stocks and to cruel scourgings, mockings and derision, and I could not keep in it without perfect patience under all these things; for through much tribulation must we enter into the kingdom of God.

I have been a listed soldier under His banner now about thirty-two years, under Him whose name is called the Word of God, who is my Captain and Leader, that warreth against the devil and his angels, against whom I have fought many a sore battle, within this thirty-two years, for refusing to be subject to the said devil’s or dragon’s laws, ordinances, institutions and worship; and for disregarding his ministers, for which transgressions I have been sentenced to pay hundreds of pounds, laid in iron chains, cruelly scourged, endured long imprisonments, set in the stocks many hours together, out of the bounds of all human law, and in a cruel manner.

Considering who was my Captain and Leader, and how well He had armed me for the battle, I thought it my wisdom to make open proclamation of war against the dragon, accordingly I did, in writing, and hung it out on a board at the prison window, but kept no copy of it, but strangely met with a copy of it many years after, and here followeth a copy of it. (See [Part II, Chapter IV.]) This proclamation of War was in the first month, and in the year 1694. It did not hang long at the Prison window before a Captain, who also was a Magistrate, came to the prison window and told me he was a Commission Officer and that proclamations belonged to him to publish; and so he took it away with him, and I never heard anything more about it from the Authority themselves; but I heard from others, who told me they were present and heard it read among the Authority, with great laughter and sport at the fancy of it.

But the Dragon which deceiveth the whole world, pitted all his forces against me in a great fury; for one of his ministers, a preacher of his doctrine, not many days after this proclamation, made complaint to the Authority against me, as I was informed, and after understood it to be so by the Authority, and that he had given evidence of Blasphemy against me; though nothing relating to my proclamation; and this following Warrant and Mittimus was issued against me, while I was in New London prison, which I took no copy of also; but the Mittimus itself came to my hands as strangely as the copy of the Proclamation did; of which here followeth a copy:—

Mittimus.

“Whereas John Rogers of New London hath of late set himself in a furious way, in direct opposition to the true worship and pure ordinances and holy institution of God; as also on the Lord’s Day passing out of prison in the time of public worship, running into the meeting-house in a railing and raging manner, as being guilty of Blasphemy.

“To the Constable of New London, or County Marshal, these are therefore in their Majestie’s name to require you to impress two sufficient men, to take unto their custody the body of John Rogers and him safely to convey unto Hartford and deliver unto the prison-keeper, who is hereby required him the said John Rogers to receive into custody and safely to secure in close prison until next Court of Assistants held in Hartford. Fail not: this dated in New London, March 28th, 1694.”

By this Warrant and Mittimus I was taken out of New London Prison, by two armed men, and carried to the head jail of the Government, where I was kept till the next Court of Assistants, and there fined £5 for reproaching their ministry, and to sit on the gallows a quarter of an hour with a halter about my neck; and from thence to the prison again, and there to continue till I paid the said £5 and gave in a bond of £50 not to disturb their churches; where I continued three years and eight months from my first commitment. This was the sentence. And upon a training day the Marshall came with eight Musqueteers, and a man to put the halter on, and as I passed by the Train Band, I held up the halter and told them my Lord was crowned with thorns for my sake and should I be ashamed to go with a halter about my neck for His sake? Whereupon, the Authority gave order forthwith that no person should go with me to the gallows, save but the guard; the gallows was out of the town. When I came to it, I saw that both gallows and ladder were newly made. I stepped up the ladder and walked on the gallows, it being a great square piece of timber and very high. I stamped on it with my feet, and told them I came there to stamp it under my feet; for my Lord had suffered on the gallows for me, that I might escape it.

From thence, I was guarded with the said eight Musqueteers to the prison again. Being come there, the Officers read to me the Court’s sentence and demanded of me whether I would give in a bond of £50 not to disturb their churches for time to come, and pay the £5 fine. I told them I owed them nothing and would not bind myself.

About five or six months after, there was a malefactor taken out of the prison where I was and put to death, by reason of which there was a very great concourse of people to behold it; and, when they had executed him, they stopped in the street near to the prison where I was, and I was taken out (I know not for what) and tied to the carriage of a great gun, where I saw the County whip, which I knew well, for it was kept in the prison where I was, and I had it oftentimes in my hand, and had viewed it, it being one single line opened at the end, and three knots tied at the end, on each strand a knot, being not so big as a cod-line; I suppose they were wont, when not upon the Dragon’s service, not to exceed forty stripes, according to the law of Moses, every lash being a stripe.

I also saw another whip lie by it with two lines, the ends of the lines tied with twine that they might not open, the two knots seemed to me about as big as a walnut; some told me they had compared the lines of the whip to the lines on the drum and the lines of the whip were much bigger. The man that did the execution did not only strike with the strength of his arm, but with a swing of his body also; my senses seemed to be quicker, in feeling, hearing, discerning, or comprehending anything at that time than at any other time.

The spectators told me they gave me three score stripes, and then they let me loose and asked me if I did not desire mercy of them. I told them, “No, they were cruel wretches.” Forthwith, they sentenced me to be whipped a second time. I was told by the spectators that they gave me sixteen stripes; and from thence I was carried to the prison again; and one leg chained to the cell. A bed which I had hired to this time, at a dear rate, was now taken from me by the jailer, and not so much as straw to lie on, nor any covering. The floor was hollow from the ground, and the planks had wide and open joints. It was upon the 18th day of the 8th month that I was thus chained, and kept thus chained six weeks, the weather cold. When the jailer first chained me, he brought some dry crusts on a dish and put them to my mouth, and told me he that was executed that day had left them, and that he would make me thankful for them before he had done with me, and would make me comply with their worship before he had done with me though the Authority could not do it; and then went out from me and came no more at me for three days and three nights; nor sent me one mouthful of meat, nor one drop of drink to me; and then he brought a pottinger of warm broth and offered it to me. I replied, “Stand away with thy broth, I have no need of it.”

“Ay! ay!” said he, “have you so much life yet in you?” and went his way. Thus I lay chained at this cell six weeks. My back felt like a dry stick without sense of feeling, being puffed up like a bladder, so that I was fain to lie upon my face. In which prison I continued three years after this, under cruel sufferings.

But I must desist; for it would contain a book of a large volume to relate particularly what I suffered in the time of this imprisonment. But I trod upon the Lion and Adder, the young lion and the dragon I trampled under my feet, and came forth a conqueror, through faith in Him who is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and hath overcome death itself for us, and him that hath the power of it also, who is the devil. But this long war hath kept me waking and watching and looking for the coming of the bridegroom and earnestly desiring that his bride may be prepared and in readiness to meet Him in her beautiful garments, being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of the saints.

We are glad to set before the gaze of the world an example of moral heroism, courage and endurance, strongly in contrast with the spirit of this pleasure-loving, gain-seeking age. A light shining in a dark place, which the storms of persecution could not extinguish nor its waves overwhelm.

Mr. McEwen says, in his Half-Century Sermon:—

During the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall, and reaching down through the long ministry of Mr. Adams, and the shorter one of Mr. Byles, a religious sect prevailed here whose acts were vexatious to this church and congregation. I have no wish to give their history except so far as their fanaticism operated as a persecution of our predecessors in this place of worship.

On the side of the oppressor there was power, said Solomon. These people were powerless from the beginning, so far as the secular or ecclesiastical arm was concerned. The power lay in the church and state, and was freely exercised by both, in a cruel and most tyrannical manner, as undisputed history attests.

Mr. McEwen admits that the Rogerenes held the doctrine of non-resistance to violence from men. Referring to this sect in the time of Mr. Byles,[^[7]] he says:—

“They were careful to make no resistance, showing their faith by their works,” and relates an anecdote which reflects no credit upon the officers of the law at that day. He says:—

One constable displayed his genius in putting the strength of this principle of non-resistance to a test. He took a bold assailant of public worship down to the harbor, placed him in a boat that was moored to a stake in deep water, perforated the bottom of the boat with an auger, gave the man a dish and left him to live by faith or die in the faith.

Quoting the words of Satan, Mr. McEwen adds, “Skin for skin, all that a man hath will he give for his life.” The faith of the man was strong, yet he was saved not by faith, but by bailing water.

Mr. McEwen is quick to condemn the infringement of the law when charged upon the Rogerenes, but makes no objections to the constable’s outrage upon law, and no reference to the hundred years of oppression, in fines, whippings, imprisonments, etc., which the Rogerenes had then endured; fines which, with, interest, would have amounted to millions of dollars at the time Mr. McEwen was speaking.

But, notwithstanding the principles of non-resistance so publicly professed by the Rogerenes, from whom the weakest had nothing to fear, Mr. McEwen dwells strongly upon the terrors which they inspired. He says:—

Mr. Saltonstall and Mr. Adams were brave men. Mr. Byles was a man of less nerve and he suffered not a little from their annoyances. He was actually afraid to go without an escort, lest he should suffer indignities from them.

We have shown (Chapter I) the transparent groundlessness of another statement made of their rudeness by Mr. McEwen, which we need not repeat; but the trials into which Mr. Byles was thrown and the escort deemed necessary present such a comical aspect that the following lines from Mother Goose seem appropriate to the case:—

Four and twenty tailors

Went to kill a snail,

The best man among them

Durst not touch its tail;

It stuck up its horns,

Like a little Kyloe cow;

Run! tailors, run! or it

Will kill you all just now.

Mr. Byles, who was ordained in 1757, seems to have been as much displeased with the church as with the Rogerenes themselves; for in 1768 he left New London, renounced the Congregational church and abandoned its ministry altogether. (See Part II, Chapter XII.)

Herod and Pilate were men of note in their day. What are they thought of now? The records of history show many examples of this sort. Quakers were once persecuted and slain. Men are now proud of such ancestry. Let the calumniated wait their hour. The progress of truth adown the ages is slow, but its chariot is golden and its coming sure.

CHAPTER III.

As round and round it takes its flight,

That lofty dweller of the skies,

And never on the earth doth light,

The fabled bird of Paradise;

So would we soar on pinions bright,

And ever keep the sun in sight,

That sun of truth, whose golden rays

Are as the “light of seven days.”

Falsehood is the bane of the world. It links men with him who was a liar from the beginning. We would bruise a lie as we would a serpent under our feet. Not so much to defend persons as to vindicate justice do we write.

It has been said that toleration is the only real test of civilization. But toleration is not the word; all men are entitled to equal religious freedom, and any infringement thereof is an infringement of a God-given right.

Who was the most calumniated person the world has ever seen,—stigmatized as a blasphemer, as a gluttonous man, as beside himself, as one that hath a devil? From his mouth we hear the words: “Blessed are ye when men shall persecute and revile you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely.”

John Rogers and his disciples, who, in the face of so much obloquy, nurtured the tree of liberty with tears, with sacrifices and with blood, would seem to be entitled to this blessing.

Is it not strange, as we have before said, that Mr. McEwen should say, “To pay taxes of any kind grieved their souls”?

Ought a public teacher to state that which a little research on his part would have shown him to be false?

Miss Caulkins sets this matter in its true light, as already shown, and it will be further elucidated by the words of John Rogers, 2d, here given:—

Forasmuch as we acknowledge the worldly government to be set up of God, we have always paid all public demands for the upholding of the same, as Town Rates and County Rates and all other demands, excepting such as are for the upholding of hireling ministers and false teachers, which God called us to testify against.

Now when the worldly rulers take upon themselves to make laws relating to God’s worship, and thereby do force and command men’s consciences, and so turn their swords against God’s children, they then act beyond their commission and jurisdiction.

Thus it is by misrepresentations without number that the name and fame of these moral heroes have been tarnished.

We will again refer to the false statements in Dr. Trumbull’s History, nearly all of which aspersions are taken from that volume of falsehoods written by Peter Pratt after Roger’s death, from which we shall presently make quotations that, we doubt not, will convince the intelligent reader that this author was unscrupulous to a degree utterly incomprehensible, unless by supposition of a natural tendency to falsehood.

Yet it is from this book of Pratt’s that historians have drawn nearly all their statements regarding the Rogerenes.

Trumbull (quoting from Pratt) says: “John Rogers was divorced from his wife for certain immoralities.”

The General Court divorced him from his wife without assigning any cause whatever, of which act Rogers always greatly complained. It was left for his enemies to circulate the above scandal, with the intent to blacken his character and thus weaken Rogerene influence. John Rogers, 2d, testifies that his mother left her husband solely on account of his religion. He says (“Ans. to Peter Pratt”):—

I shall give the reader a true account concerning the matter of the first difference between John Rogers and his wife, as I received it from their own mouths, they never differing in any material point as to the account they gave about it.

Although I did faithfully, and in the fear of God, labor with her in her lifetime, by persuading her to forsake her adulterous life and unlawful companions; yet, since her death, should have been glad to have heard no more about it, had not Peter Pratt, like a bad bird, befouled his own nest by raking in the graves of the dead and by publishing such notorious lies against them “whom the clods of the valley forbid to answer for themselves;”[^[8]] for which cause I am compelled to give a true account concerning those things, which is as follows:—

John Rogers and his wife were both brought up in the New England way of worship, never being acquainted with any other sect; and although they were zealous of the form which they had been brought up in, yet were wholly ignorant as to the work of regeneration, until, by a sore affliction which John Rogers met with, it pleased God to lay before his consideration the vanity of all earthly things and the necessity of making his peace with God and getting an interest in Jesus Christ, which he now applies himself to seek for, by earnest prayer to God in secret and according to Christ’s words, Matt. vii, 7, 8, “Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth,” etc.

And he coming to witness the truth of these scriptures, by God’s giving him a new heart and another spirit, and by remitting the guilt of his sins, did greatly engage him to love God with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself, as did appear by his warning all people he met with to make their peace with God, declaring what God had done for his soul.

Now his wife, observing the great change which was wrought in her husband, as appeared by his fervent prayers, continually searching the scriptures, and daily discoursing about the things of God to all persons he met with, and particularly to her, persuading her to forsake her vain conversation and make her peace with God, did greatly stir her up to seek to God by earnest prayer, that he would work the same work of grace in her soul, as she saw and believed to be wrought in her husband.

After some time, upon their diligent searching the holy scriptures, they began to doubt of some of the principles which they had traditionally been brought up in; and particularly that of sprinkling infants which they had been taught to call Baptism; but now they find it to be only an invention of men; and neither command nor example in Scripture for it. Upon which, they bore a public testimony against it, which soon caused a great uproar in the country.

And their relations, together with their neighbors, and indeed the world in general who had any opportunity, were all united in persuading them that it was a spirit of error by which they were deluded.

But the main instrument which Satan at length made use of to deceive John Roger’s wife, was her own natural mother, who, by giving her daughter an account of her own conversion, as she called it, and telling her daughter there was no such great change in the work of conversion as they had met with; but that it was the Devil had transformed himself into an angel of light, at length fully persuaded her daughter to believe that it was even so.

Whereupon, she soon publicly recanted and renounced that Spirit which she had been led by, and declared it to be the spirit of the Devil, and then vehemently persuaded her husband to do the like, telling him, with bitter tears, that unless he would renounce that spirit she dare not live with him. But he constantly telling her that he knew it to be the Spirit of God and that to deny it would be to deny God; which he dare not do.

Whereupon she left her husband, taking her two children with her, and with the help of her relations went to her father’s house, about eighteen miles from her husband’s habitation.

And I do solemnly declare, in the presence of God, that this is a true relation of their first separation, as I received it from their own mouths, as also by the testimony of two of their next neighbors is fully proved. (See Chapter IV, 1st Part.)

So doubtful was she herself of the lawfulness of her subsequent marriage with the father of Peter Pratt, that she never signed her name Elizabeth Pratt to any legal document; but “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” many instances of which are on record.

This charge made against John Rogers, in Dr. Trumbull’s History, is further shown to be false by the record of the Court at Hartford, May 25, 1675; the grand jury returning that they “find not the bill.” Yet, in the face of this patent fact, has this false charge been perpetuated by ecclesiastical historians and their followers. We note, however, one shining exception, contained in the Saulisbury “Family Histories,” under the Matthew Griswold line, treating of the divorce of his daughter Elizabeth, which is here given:—

In 1674, her first husband departed from the established orthodoxy of the New England churches, by embracing the doctrines of the Seventh Day Baptists; and, having adopted later “certain peculiar notions of his own,” though still essentially orthodox as respects the fundamental faith of his time, became the founder of a new sect, named after him Rogerenes, Rogerene Quakers, or Rogerene Baptists. Maintaining “obedience to the civil government,” he denounced as unscriptural all interference of the civil power in the worship of God.

It seemed proper to give these particulars with regard to Rogers, because they were made the ground[^[9]] of a petition by his wife for divorce, in May, 1675, which was granted by the “General Court,” in October of the next year, and was followed in 1677 by another, also granted, for the custody of her children, her late husband being so “hettridox in his opinions and practice.”

The whole reminds us of other instances, more conspicuous in history, of the narrowness manifested by fathers of New England towards any deviations from the established belief, and of their distrust of individual conscience as a sufficient rule of religious life, without the interference of civil authority. There is no reason to believe that the heterodoxy “in practice” referred to in the wife’s last petition to the Court, was anything else than a nonconformity akin to that for the sake of which the shores of their “dear old England” had been left behind forever by the very men who forgot to tolerate it themselves, in their new Western homes. Of course, like all persecuted, especially religious, parties, the Rogerenes courted, gloried in, and profited by, distresses.

In Trumbull’s History, we also find the scandalous statement, to which we have previously referred: “They would come on the Lord’s day into the most public assemblies nearly or quite naked.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no evidence on record, or tradition, concerning any such act. Among the hundreds of prosecutions against the Rogerenes, no such thing is alluded to on the records, etc. Miss Caulkins in her History makes no reference to this stigma. Yet Mr. McEwen, in his Half-Century Sermon, says: “Dr. Trumbull and perhaps some others give us some historical items of the Rogerenes.”

By thus referring to Dr. Trumbull’s History, he virtually, we would hope not intentionally, indorses all the errors concerning this sect, which are contained in that work.

But, like the entablature of a column, crowning all the rest, are the words of Rev. Mr. Saltonstall, credited to same ‘History,’ and which we have before quoted:—

There never was, for this twenty years that I have resided in this government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this people.