From: Anna B. Williams. The Rogerenes: Part II, History of the Rogerenes. Boston: Stanhope Press, 1904.

Page 242

CHAPTER IX.

1716.

ONE of the spasmodic attempts to secure more strict enforcement of ecclesiastical laws is instituted about this period. Edicts have been issued by the General Court charging the various officials to observe greater stringency in the execution of all these laws. That this sudden and severe pull on the rein does not occasion a general and continued uprising on the part of the Rogerenes, is only explainable on the supposition that the first attempt to lay hands on them anew having brought forth the countermove, the authorities have thought best to desist from further serious molestation. The particulars of this countermove are as follows: —

Apri122, 1716, there is an entry into the Congregational meeting- house by John Rogers and his wife Sarah, John Bolles and his wife Sarah, John Culver and his wife Sarah, and several others, names not given. The cause of the disturbance is, as usual in affairs of this kind, studiously ignored on the court records; but evidently — as afterwards indicated — this entry, with scriptural testimony not revealed, was occasioned by the breaking up of Rogerene meetings by the town authorities, with the accompanying feature, a church-party mob. As has been seen, the Rogerene meetings, not being among those allowed by law, can at any time be broken up at the pleasure or caprice of the authorities, and their continued existence has depended, not upon the willing forbearance of the ecclesiastical rulers, nor, to any really saving extent, upon the public sympathy enlisted in their favor; but chiefly upon that formidable reserve power — the entrance into the meeting-house, with scriptural testimony.

Proof of the exact date of this countermove and that the before-

Page 243

mentioned persons were concerned in it, is contained in the "Hempstead Diary" and a record of the General Court in the following month (May). By the latter record, Governor Saltonstall, referring in this assembly to the offense committed by the said persons, states that they are now in New London jail.¹ The governor also states that he learns, from "relatives" of the prisoners, that they were ignorant of the provisions, under the law of 1708 (see Chapter VII.), relating to those who soberly dissent. Probably said relatives have been far more ignorant of this law than have any of the Rogerenes, who are naturally watching all ecclesiastical regulations with lynx-like vigilance and are particularly aware that there is no relief for their Society in this law, as allowed in the Colony of Connecticut. The governor knows just what the Rogerenes know in this regard. But he goes on to order that the said prisoners be released — ostensibly on the ground of this ignorance declared by their friends — and says, in case they behave themselves orderly and rest contented with the liberty of worship given them under said law, they shall not be prosecuted.

All this on the part of the governor doubtless sounds very plausible and very indulgent, to the uninitiated. He is evidently very glad of some excuse to release the prisoners. So much of a hornet's nest has been aroused, about this time, that not even the disturbance of the Congregational meeting, less than two weeks before, is considered sufficient ground for detaining them longer in prison or imposing any more serious fine than payment of their prison fees.

By the joint testimony of Peter Pratt and John Rogers, 2d, it is shown that the governor distinctly stated before the Assembly at this time that the Rogerenes should be allowed to worship God according to their consciences, if they would refrain from disturbing Congregational worship, and that he would punish any who

¹ In fact, the wife of John Rogers was discharged the day after the occurrence. She, being a regular Quaker, came under different laws from the Rogerenes and appears to have been treated with some leniency. Her coming from the State of New York and from a prominent Quaker community in that State may have had something to do with this leniency.

Page 244

should disturb their worship.¹ Here is something tangible, as opposed to the ambiguity of the court record ; it not only indicates that the April countermove was a direct result of interference with Rogerene meetings, but that said countermove had been productive of a decisive advantage. In short, interference with their meetings had caused the countermove, the countermove had forced the governor to himself promise them immunity from further interference of this sort, on condition that they would not exercise their reserve power.

1719.

Three years have now passed, with no record of any disturbance of the Congregational meetings, and of nothing, in fact, to show how matters are progressing that concern Rogerene history, unless it be the total lack of court notice. It is at least a season of patient endurance and forbearance on the part of the Rogerenes, so far as the ordinary distrainments are concerned. About this time, there is talk of a proposed rebuilding, or enlargement, of the Congregational meeting-house, which will occasion a new levy on the Rogerenes, with the usual wholesale seizure of property. But something more serious than this now occurs, the exact nature of which is hidden from our view. The disturbing move is made by the town authorities, under some one of the Sunday laws, and the victim is Sarah, wife of John Bolles, her infringement of this Sunday law being "a matter of conscience" on her part.

It must be borne in mind that under the ecclesiastical laws, to whose unscriptural character it is the mission of this sect to bear testimony at all hazards, punishments far beyond the letter of said laws are frequently being inflicted upon the Rogerenes. The following from John Bolles throws light upon this subject: —

¹ "And first I grant that the governor did actually make this promise, viz., that, to persuade us to forbear, if we would be quiet and worship God in our own way according to our consciences, he would punish any of the people that should disturb our worship, — and that it was in a Public Court before a multitude of hearers." — John Rogers, 2d.

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

Page 245

When a poor man hath had but one milch cow for his family's support, 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 his own Society, or to defray the charges of a cruel whipping for going to such a meeting, or things of this nature. Yea, twelve or fourteen pounds worth of estate hath been taken to defray the charges of one such cruel whipping, without making any return as the law directs. Yea, fourscore and odd sheep have been taken from a man, being all his flock; a team taken from the plow, with all its furniture and led away. But I am not now 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; besides the cruelties inflicted on our bodies and many long imprisonments...

Here we see something of those things which never appear upon the court records and of whose "boundless"ness we only now and then catch a glimpse, by some side-light like this or by a Rogerene entrance into the meeting-house, the latter effect always pointing to some unbearable wrong as its cause. To continue with this statement of John Bolles: —

"and many long imprisonments, of which I shall mention one woman, when she was condemned by a judge in a case of conscience; because she stopped her ears and would not hearken to his sentence, as not belonging to him to judge in such cases, but with a cheerful spirit sang praises to God, and then turned to the judge and said that if he went on persecuting God's people God's judgments would come upon him and his."

There are among the Rogerenes many sweet singers, who sing hymns and psalms in certain meetings of their Society. It appears (by aid of above statement) that Sarah, wife of John Bolles, is one of these; for, by a Superior Court record of September 22, 1719, it is shown that Sarah Bolles is summoned from prison before that court

"to answer for reflecting upon the proceedings of a court held in New London,¹ in saying to one of the judges thereof, viz.: Rich. Christo-

¹ About four months before and evidently a town court and the one referred to by John Bolles.

Page 246

phers, Esq.: Now look to yourself for God's judgments will surely come upon you, for your unjust judgments for persecuting God's people — Said Sarah, being asked whether she was guilty or not guilty of the crime for which she was committed, refused to make any plea. Whereupon said Sarah Bolles shall suffer two months' imprisonment" (in addition to the four already endured) "and pay the charges of her prosecution and stand committed till the said charge be paid, viz.: £1 19s."

So this heroic woman, who has ten children at home, five of whom are under ten years of age, is returned to prison, not only for the two months, but until she pay the charges of her prosecution, which the court, as well as her own people, have good reason to believe she will never pay, thus to encourage the authorities in their unchristian persecution of the Rogerenes. John Bolles goes on to say, regarding this woman, whose name he does not reveal: —

Whereupon said judge condemned her to prison, where after further determination, [viz.: above Superior Court sentence] she was required to remain till she should pay the charge of her prosecution, so called, and there continued six months, till God made way by moving the hearts of the people with compassion for her deliverence, by seeing her affliction; she being not only locked up in prison but also a high boarded fence round the prison, locked also,¹ and the prison keeper living near half a mile from the prison, it being an extreme cold winter, and in the height of it she miscarried, being without any help nor could call for any, her husband living about a mile and a half from the prison and was not suffered to come to her; as if God suffered such things to be done to lay conviction before all faces. But after her release she was carried home on her bed in a cart and after some time she was, thro' God's goodness, restored to health again.

About two weeks previous to this appearance of Sarah Bolles before the Superior Court, there occurred a Rogerene countermove which is directly traceable to her imprisonment. This countermove took place September 6, after Sarah had been nearly four

¹ Here is recognizable the "inner prison" described by John Rogers.

Page 247

months in prison. It must have been known to the Rogerenes, and to the authorities as well, that she was with child, which, together with the fact that the youngest of the ten children needing her at home is but two years of age,^l made this long imprisonment in "a matter of conscience," with the impending appearance before the Superior Court on charge of contempt, especially aggravating. The circumstances called for some imperative action on the part of her friends, the more so, bes:ause no mercy could be expected from the. judge of the Superior Court.

The persons accused of entering the meeting-house on this 6^th of September, are John Rogers and his wife, Sarah, wife of John Culver, John Bolles, John Rogers, Jr., Andrew Davis and Esther Culver. The records relative to this countermove are in the minutes of the November session of the County Court in New London. First, that on September 6, while Mr. Adams was at public prayer, John Rogers, Sr., entered the meeting-house and interrupted the service in a loud voice.² (No slightest clew is given to the words spoken. ) He pleads "not guilty" and is fined £20 and charges, £3. The record states that, upon this (November) trial, he "behaved himself contemptuously, coming into court in a violent manner and raving voice, saying, 'What have you to say to me, etc.' (would we might have the words in place of the 'etc.') and when the indictment (not revealed) was read, he cried out That's a ly, and upon that part of the indictment (part not revealed) when read he again cried out, 'That's a devilish ly,' and by abusing one of the members of the court in saying to him, upon said justice's affirmation, several times that's a ly, and for several other abusive demeanors" in the court-room (unfortunately not described), he is sentenced to pay 20s. — he who so often for no more contempt than this has been fined £20. (Moreover, as late as May 25, of the following year, it is on record that "execution" for this 20s. was

¹ This child was Joshua Bolles, grandfather of Mr. John R. Bolles.

² The following is from the "Hempstead Diary:" — "1719, Sept. 6. Sun. Jno. Rogers and his crew made a disturbance — the midst of prayer time They came in a horse cart. Committed to prison at night."

Page 248

"returned with nothing acted upon it." In this insignificant fine is visible the sympathy of a jury, and in the lack of "execution" the fact that no collector is willing to collect this fine, although he may be himself fined for the omission.) The record continues :— "John Rogers demands a present appeal to the King's bench." "Court consider that no such appeal lies."

Sarah, wife of John Rogers, is also presented at this November court for having come into the meeting-house, on the same occasion (September 6), and "interrupted Mr. Adams by speaking several words in a loud voice." The court having considered the evidence in this case and that said Sarah has "behaved herself competantly well before the court and also pleading ignorance of the laws and methods of this government, and considering her also under covert and that she has been committed to prison until this court," sentence her to pay a fine of 10s. and prison fees, £3. Sarah, wife of John Culver, for same offense on same occasion, same fine and fee. John Bolles "for breach of Sabbath" on same day (form of breach not stated), same fine and charge as the women. Andrew Davis, Esther Culver and John Rogers, Jr., same charge and fines as John Bolles.

For the two months previous to this November court, John Rogers and his wife, Sarah Culver, John Bolles and the others have been confined in prison. All these people know, at the date of this November court, that Sarah Bolles has not only lost her child, but is lying at the point of death in the "inner prison." Well might the leader of the Society in whose cause she has so suffered and endured, when he at length escaped from prison and had an opportunity to speak in public, employ such scathing words as befitted the occasion.

(From this court scene as described by Peter Pratt, — see Chapter XIV., — are derived the statements that John Rogers and his followers were accustomed to accuse dignitaries of lying.)

After all the verdicts in this case have been rendered, Sarah, wife of John Culver, knowing so much more of this season of persecution and the legal (and illegal) proceedings than is possible to

Page 249

outsiders, indignantly exclaims in court: "You are an adulterous generation and I hope God will find you out" (by Court Record), for which the court sentences her to receive fifteen stripes on the naked body and to pay charges for the same.

Nor is this the end of the matter. Sarah Bolles, despite all protest, still lies at the point of death in the cold and dismal "inner prison." What can yet be done by this non-resistant people? They may not, by their principles, even waylay the jailer, seize his keys, hold him for a time in durance, and so rescue Sarah Bolles. But, upheld by the public sympathy now enlisted, they can head a resolved company of men and women, break down the gate of the prison fence, and, aided by the Rogerenes within the jail, force open the prison doors and bring out the helpless captive. This is exactly what takes place.

Before this same November court is at an end, complaint is made to said court by the keeper of the prison, that "John Culver, John Culver, Jr., Bathsheba, wife of John Rogers, Jr., and Mary Rogers, daughter of John Rogers, Sr., did, on the 26th and 27th of this Nov." (viz., at midnight) "stave down part of the prison yard." A significant ending of this record is that for this misdemeanor John Culver and his son are to pay only 10s. and charges, and Bathsheba and Mary to pay only the charges of their prosecution, also that John Rogers and the others still in prison are not brought before this court at all. All this shows the extent of public sympathy at the time, especially in regard to those concerned in the September countermove.

The court record does not inform us that Sarah Bolles was rescued from the prison by this raid and carried home in a cart; neither does it inform us that the company headed by the persons tried for this daring deed contained others besides Rogerenes, whose approbation was enlisted by the danger of a second murder being committed in that prison, through cruel neglect. Only by the public sympathy exhibited on this occasion can the facts be accounted for that no action is taken by the court regarding the escaped prisoner and no record of her escape made.

Page 250

John Rogers had been returned to prison on account of non-payment of the £23, for disturbance of meeting. John, Jr., John Bolles and the others were in prison also for non-payment of smaller fines, for the same offense. Thus the attack from outside the prison lacked the usual leadership; yet that these prisoners were concerned in the rescue, from a position within the prison, is shown by a record of the General Court of November 30, to the effect that, at a special meeting of the Governor and Council, of that date, "it is ordered that the fines and penalties incurred by John Rogers etc." ("etc." doubtless including the others tried with John Rogers for the September countemlove) "on account of recent tumultuous and riotous proceedings of which said prisoners have been guilty, be applied — upon collection of same — to the extraordinary charge which they have occasioned the county by said proceedings." This "charge" evidently refers to repairs of the prison which was broken into three days before in behalf of Sarah Bolles. Why the Culvers and Mary and Bathsheba were brought before the County Court (where they were so lightly fined) and "John Rogers, Sr. etc." dealt with by a special court can only be conjectured. It is not unlikely that this raid upon the jail resulted also in the rescue of Sarah Culver from the stripes. The fact that her husband and son acted with the women indicates such a possibility.

As has been seen, the arrest of Sarah Bolles was for some so-called "breach of Sabbath." ¹ Certainly she could not have been ploughing or carting. Had she been spinning at the door of her home, or had she ventured to walk some distance over the Norwich road to visit one of her friends? In either case, this would be no more than she had been doing ever since 1707; yet either of these acts would have furnished legal ground for her arrest. The only way to account for the proceedings against her is by supposition of another of the spasmodic attempts to intimidate and repress Rogerene leadership. That Sarah Bolles deserves the name of a leader in this Society is evident.

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

Page 251

One of the most serious grievances of the Rogerenes, since they began to hold their services on Sunday, is that, although the Congregationalists are allowed to go long distances to Congregational meetings, the Rogerenes are arrested for travelling any considerable distance to meetings of their own persuasion. From the fact that they hold their meetings in private houses, such services are sometimes at one house and sometimes at another, and, as they are widely scattered (outside the nucleus at Quaker Hill), some of the members are always liable to travel some distance.

On Sunday, December 13, two weeks after the November trial just described, a young Rogerene, by the name of John Waterhouse, has the audacity to appear at the door of the Congregational meeting-house, and, "standing within the ground sill, in sermon time," to exclaim: "I am come to enter complaint that I am stopped on the King's highway." ¹ He has availed himself of the one efficient mode of defense, the Rogerene countermove.

1720.

The proof of this courageous stand of John Waterhouse, while the leading Rogerenes are in prison, is from records of the County Court, June, 1720. By these records it is also shown that some three months after the above offense (and apparently while out on bail, pending trial in June ) this same young man "blew a horn or shell near the meeting-house, while the congregation were singing," and, refusing to give bond for appearance at the County Court in June, "with good behavior in meantime," is arrested and imprisoned.

At this same June court, the offender is brought from prison, and being charged with the first offense, of December 13, refuses

¹ The following, from Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Justice Backus, appears to indicate the usual manner of this interference, although referring., in this particular case, to the church at Norwich. — "And several times since, when we have passed by their meeting-house along the road towards our own meeting, their constable has prest a considerable number of men out of their meeting house, who with horses have followed hard after us with ungoverned zeal, and have stopped us and made prisoners of us for the sake of our religion."

Page 252

to reply to the question "guilty or not guilty."¹ The court now proceeds to give judgment, "on a nihil dicit," of £20 fine, with charges of prosecution, and if he do not immediately pay or give surety he "shall be let out," until the same is paid. The same judgment, upon a nihil dicit, is pronounced in regard to the blowing of the horn, viz.: fine of £20, which if not paid he is to be let out, etc.

Yet this very act of blowing a horn on Sunday near a meeting-house, in time of service, is among the offenses enumerated upon the law book as finable by only 40s., which is all the young man had reason to expect. Here are more than £40 for this young man to pay, or go into common servitude for a long period.

Nor is this all that is charged against John Waterhouse at this June court. He is examined on suspicion of being concerned in a most astonishing performance, in the month previous (May 4), viz.: the "opening and carrying away of the doors of the prison" to which the clarion blast had consigned him, and in which he had been confined something over a month. At date of this June court, said doors have "not yet been found." It is also stated that, during this imprisonment, he had made his escape from the prison several times — and, of course, he had escaped again at the time of the opening of the doors. He pleads "not guilty" regarding the doors, probably, as do other Rogerenes in such cases, admitting no guilt in doing that which they consider right, however contrary it may be to the law. Fortunately for the romance, he does not satisfy the court that he had no hand in said damage and disappearance. The jailer is to recover from him the value of the prison doors "as they were, with the locks on them," which is £5. With charge of prosecution and another fine of £20 for this offense, added to his previous fines, more than £70 are required of this young man at this June court. £70 represents a snug little fortune

¹ It was the Rogerene custom when arraigned for countermove offenses, either to make no reply to this court query or to reply "not guilty," in the sense of having done nothing wrong. We occasionally find John Bolles replying that he will "be judged by God and not by man."

Page253

(at this date), enough to buy a good farm "with mansion house thereon." This is the more preparing him for life-long opposition to ecclesiastical government, an opposition which is to be transmitted undiminished to his descendants. (For this young man is to be the founder of the Quakertown community, that "remnant" which, in the words of Rev. Abel McEwen," exists in a neighboring town.")

Since John Waterhouse is to be so potent a factor in Rogerene history, let us scrutinize him as closely as the scanty glimpses permit. Is he not some young scapegrace, allied to the Rogerenes for love of their so venturesome and exciting life? So he might be judged, but for the preamble of one old deed of gift on the New London records, despite the fact that he is a son of Jacob Waterhouse and grandson of Mr. Robert Douglass,¹ two of the most substantial citizens of New London and members of the Congregational church. Jacob Waterhouse, in 1717, singled out this son John to receive, by deed of gift, the family homestead, "my father's habitation,² near the mill bridge," as well as a valuable tract of land at "Foxen's Hill" on the river; not because he was his oldest son, but "for love and appreciation of his dutiful behavior." It is, then, the dutiful son of a wealthy and honorable citizen of New London who was arraigned as above at the June court in 1720. Surely it would not be wise to omit visiting upon this renegade youth dire punishment for his bold espousal of Rogerene faith and Rogerene methods, lest other promising young men of the Congregational fold should dare to venture upon a like career.

But we are not yet through with this interesting June court. John Bolles is here arraigned, on a like suspicion of being concerned in opening and carrying away those prison doors "that have not yet been found." For declining, at the time of their disappearance, "to give any reply to inquiries made of him concern-

¹ Jacob Waterhouse married Ann Douglass (daughter of Mr. Robert Douglass and Mary Hempstead, daughter of Robert Hempstead). John was their oldest child, born, I690.

² Viz., homestead of Jacob Waterhouse, 1^st, one of the planters of New London.

Page 254

ing that matter" he has been imprisoned until now. He now pleads "not guilty," which of itself might mean that he acknowledges no guilt in the matter; but his wife is present to testify that he was at home upon the night of this romantic occurrence, also Esther Waterhouse,^l "who lodged at John Bolles' that night," testifies to the same effect; upon which John Bolles is to be discharged, on payment of costs of prosecution and prison fees. One can but marvel that John Bolles did not in the first place avail himself of this so convenient testimony, and thus escape imprisonment and expense. Also, why were not those noted prison breakers, John Rogers, Sr. and Jr., arraigned, on suspicion of complicity in this matter? Had they no hand in this achievement, or were their tracks so well covered that no slightest clew could be discovered by the authorities? Did John Bolles, knowing he had evidence to clear himself at sitting of the June court, allow himself to be imprisoned on this suspicion, in order to draw attention from the true culprits?

Sometime in this year is printed, in Boston, "The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ," by John Rogers, Sr.²

¹ Daughter of John Culver and recently married to John Waterhouse.

² Here it may be well to refer to the mode of distribution of the works of this author. He appears to have himself carried many of them about New England, going long journeys on horseback, the books in his portmanteau. This not only gave him opportunity to circulate his writings more extensively, but to discourse with people at a distance, and also to preach in various places. He must in such, as well as in other more evident ways, have been extensively known and famous in his day. This accounts for his dedication of the above-mentioned volume "To the Flock Scattered Throughout New England." John Bolles circulated many of his own books in like manner.

Return to QUAKERTOWN Online