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

Page 183

CHAPTER V.

1695.

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

1. For that in New London, in Feb. last, thou didst lay thy hand upon thy breast and say: This is the humane body of Christ, which words are presumptuous, absurd and of a blasphemous nature.

2. For saying, concerning a wheelbarrow thou broughtest into the meeting house about a week or fortnight before, that Christ drove the wheelbarrow - an impious belying of Christ, accusing him to be the author of sin and was on the Sabbath day.

3. Thou art presented for disturbing the congregation of N. London on the Lord's day, when they were in the public worship of God.

4. Also for saying in court that thou did'st nothing and had said nothing but what thy Lord and Master sent thee to doe etc.¹ which expressions were spoken in answer to the governor, who reproved thee for disturbing God's people in his day and worship.

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

Messrs. Saltonstall, Christophers and Wetherell testify that ("at Mr: Thomas Young's") they saw John Rogers lay his hand on his breast, and heard him say: "This is the humane body of

¹ The "&c." is of the record.

Page 184

Christ; "they also heard him say in a II laughing," or "as they thought in a flouting way," "brother Jesus and brother Paul." Owned in court by John Rogers "that he said his body was Christ's " (note this exact agreement with his son's statement, Part I, Chapter II), also that he used the term brother in regard to Christ and Paul.

The opinions of four ministers are taken as to the blasphemous nature of said expressions. The names of these ministers are "Samuel Stow, Moses Noyes, Timothy Woodbridge and Caleb Watson." They judge that the expression, "This is the humane body of Christ," has a high blasphemous reflection. The saying "brother Jesus is also a presumptuous expression, in the manner of his saying it" (viz., as rendered by Gurdon Saltonstall). "The saying that Christ drove the wheelbarrow is an impious belying of Christ" (regardless of the prisoner's denial of having made any such statement). "The reflections on our worship are a slanderous charge against the generation of the righteous, and heretical and impious." ¹ They also " apprehend that in every one of the expressions evidenced against him there is a high and abominable profanation of the name of Christ."

Verdict, guilty. Sentence: -

To be led forth to the place of execution with a rope about his neck, and there to stand upon a ladder leaning against the gallows, with the rope about his neck, for a quarter of an hour. And for his evil speaking against the ordinances of God to pay a fine of £5; for disturbing the congregation to be kept in prison until he gives security to the value of £50 for his peaceable behavior and non-disturbance of the people of God for the future and until he pay to the keeper of the prison his just fees and dues.

Here is set forth a term of imprisonment which can be ended only by some change of policy on the part of the authorities; since

¹ Although the "Proclamation" put out at the prison window appears (by absence on the court records) not to have figured in open court, it was evidently in the minds of these priestly judges.

Page 185

it is well known by those who have this matter in charge that John Rogers never gives such security or bonds.

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

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

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

Bathsheba Fox, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright (the Indian servant before referred to) are arraigned before the Superior Court at Hartford, on suspicion of being "concerned in" both of the above occurrences. The only evidence against John, Jr., and his aunt Bathsheba is of a circumstantial character, to the effect that some conversation transpired previous to these occurrences which it is considered may have instigated the burning and desecration on the part of others, notably of William Wright. The latter is convicted of defiling the Stonington meeting-house.¹

It is probable that, in the height of their excitement over the treatment John Rogers received at Hartford, Bathsheba, John, Jr., and others expressed great indignation against Mr. Saltonstall and the New London church generally. Yet the burning of the meeting-house was probably as much a surprise to them as to anyone, and certainly as great a financial disaster; since upon them more than

¹ After diligent search, no evidence has been found of enmity on the part of the Rogerenes towards the Stonington church.

Page 186

upon others, by exorbitant seizure of property, must fall the expense of a new edifice. This latter fact, as well as certainty that suspicion and apprehension must surely fall in their quarter, would naturally deter them from any such undertaking. Also, retaliatory measures of this description are contrary to the principles of this sect.¹

At this same Superior Court session, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright are charged with having recently assisted in the escape from the Hartford prison of a man, "Matthews," who was condemned to death.² William Wright is charged with assisting Matthews to escape from prison, and John Rogers, Jr., is accused of conveying him out of the colony. He appears to have been soon recaptured, and is again in prison at the time these charges are preferred. This is not the only instance in which John Rogers, Jr., is found running great risk and displaying great courage in a cause which he deems right before God, however criminal in the judgment of men.

For assisting in this escape, William Wright is to pay half the charges incurred in recapturing Mat thews. For "abusing" Stonington meeting-house, for not acknowledging to have heard alleged conversations among the Rogerses and their confederates in regard to the burning of New London meeting-house, and for having made his escape from justice (by which he appears to have recently escaped from jail ³), he is to be "sorely whipped" and returned to Hartford prison.

¹ Miss Caulkins says regarding this burning of the meeting-house: "It was supposed to be an act of incendiarism, and public fame attributed it to the followers of John Rogers. Several of these people were arrested and tried for the crime, but it could not be proved against them, and they may now without hesitation be pronounced innocent. Public sympathy was enlisted on the other side, and had they committed a deed which was then esteemed a high degree of sacrilege, it is difficult to believe they would have escaped exposure and penalty."

² The capital crime with which he was charged appears not to have been well-proven, for which reason the condemned prisoner petitioned that there might be a fuller investigation. (See Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors, State Library.) The fact that, although meriting severe punishment, this youth was not guilty to the extent presumed by the penalty, is indicated by his after reprieve.

³ Where he was doubtless confined for his "disturbance outside the meeting house" in the recent countermove, the "ten stripes" being too mild a punishment.

Page 187

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

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

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

In the meantime, Mr. Saltonstall and his friends, who have recently been congratulating themselves on the success of their scheme for keeping John Rogers in Hartford jail, are gravely contemplating the ashes of their meeting-house and the remnants of

Page 188

its new bell, with still further uneasiness in regard to results like enough to ensue from added distrainments of the nonconformists towards the building of another edifice.

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

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

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

"is violently opposed by some whose narrow principles, fierce inclinations .and self interest have wedded to a spirit of persecution and an itch for domineering over their neighbors. That the present actions of the authority show that the king has nothing to do with this colony. That the compelling them to pay towards the maintainance of a Congregational Minister is contrary to law and therefore rapine and robbery .That

Page 189

the rights of peaceable dissenters have been of late, by permission of the authorities, violated, and that the authority has illegally oppressed them."

(Here is proof of recent unusual procedures by the town magistrates, not only against the Rogerenes, but in regard to the quiet dissenters on the Great Neck and elsewhere. This persecution has been going on out of sight of the general public, by action of the town authorities, since no County Court record appears, undoubtedly it was this revival of indignities that stirred John Rogers to his bold move.) The "emitters" of this paper are placed under bonds for appearance at the County Court, where they are fined £5 each "for defamation of their Majesties," viz.: "the Gov. of Conn. and others in authority," as well as "breach of His Majesty's peace and disquietude of his liege people." The "emitters" appeal to the Superior Court, not because they expect any favor from that quarter, but it keeps the cause before that public in whose sense of justice is all their hope.

1697.

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

Our glimpses of Joseph Rogers are meagre. He and his wife appear not to have joined the Newport church, but were evidently members of the church of which John Rogers was pastor. (We have seen the wife's baptism, Chapter II.) Yet, of late years, Joseph has been scarcely more noticeable than Jonathan, as regards arraignment for labor on the first day of the week, which, as in

Page 190

case of the latter, appears to prove that his labor was not of an ostentatious character. That he was steady, thrifty, industrious and enterprising is very evident. He added largely, by purchase, to the lands given him by his father, and had become proprietor of a saw-mill and corn-mill at Lyme. He died intestate, and his widow, Sarah, administered on his estate. Sarah Rogers now carries forward the suit in which her husband was engaged. The court appears not unfavorable to her presentation of the case; but, on account of a neglect on her part in regard to certain technicalities, the trial comes to a pause, and, through lack of further action on her part, the case is again decided in favor of Jonathan.

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

In 1697, the General Court appoint a committee to revise the laws of the colony and certain "reverent elders" to advise the persons chosen in this affair,¹ and also "to advise this court in what manner they ought to bear testimony against the irregular actions of John Rogers in printing and publishing a book reputed scandalous and heretical."

John Rogers, Jr., is now twenty-three years of age, a young man of brilliant parts and daring courage. Since he is the printer and circulator of this book, he is probably also its author. In this same

¹ A very distinct glimpse of the power given to ministers of the standing order in state legislation.

Page 191

month of May, "John Rogers, Jr.," is "bound in a bond of £40" "to appear at court" (Superior) "to answer what may be objected against him for bringing a printed book or pamphlet into this colony which was not licensed by authority, and for selling the same up and down the colony, as also for other misdemeanors " – the nature of the latter not indicated. No complaint being presented against him, he is dismissed.

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

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

Does the little book create so much sympathy " up and down the colony," that it is no lol1ger wise to keep John Rogers incarcerated, or are his ecclesiastical enemies at last sated by his nearly four years of close imprisonment in Hartford jail? However this may be, at the October session of the Superior Court, 1697, John Rogers is brought from prison and "set at liberty in open court," "in expectation that he will behave himself civilly and peaceably in the future." The promise of good behavior is not required of him, as formerly, but in its place the "in expectation," etc., which is not their expectation at all, unless with the proviso that they themselves observe due caution in the handling of him and his followers. They are apparently mindful of public opinion and of the little book.

William Wright is also brought from prison to this court. He stands here, in the presence of this master, who has just been set at

Page 192

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

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

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

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

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

The wonder is that John Rogers held his peace until the full completion of this sentence. Had an outburst of indignation and condemnation of this unjust sentence not been forthcoming, as this

Page 193

faithful servant was being returned to the close imprisonment of Hartford jail, then might it be said that John Rogers could, for fear or favor, stand silent in the presence of injustice. For such an outburst as this ¹ John Rogers is immediately fined is. This "contempt of court" is briefly rendered on the records as follows: –

"John Rogers upon the above sentence being passed upon William Wright behaved himself disorderly, in speaking without leave and declaring that he did protest against the said sentence."

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

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

1698.

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

¹ The words spoken do not appear on record.

Page 194

fulfil.¹ (This case has been fully presented in Part I., Chapter VI.)

(Motive for any such alleged statement, unless true, being lacking, and a pamphlet being published not long after by John Rogers, giving a detailed account of the whole cause and proceeding, by which the exorbitant sum of £600 recovery for libel, with costs of court, was levied upon him, it is presumable that enmity and court influence were at the bottom of this suit, if not clearly on the surface. Ecclesiastical power was dominant at this time in all the courts. Ever back of Mr. Saltonstall stood this power, as intent as himself upon the overthrow of this daring nonconformist. Could a copy of the pamphlet by John Rogers,² giving details of that remarkable suit, be found, much light would doubtless be cast upon this period in the history of the Rogerenes.)

The death of Elizabeth, widow of James, has recently occurred.³ John Rogers has changed his home from the Great Neck to Mamacock farm, North Parish. His sister Bathsheba has also removed to the North Parish, to a place called Fox's Mills, from the mills owned and carried on by her husband, Samuel Fox.

¹ It would be interesting to know exactly what doctrine or doctrines were involved. By the occurrence of this suit so soon after John Rogers' release from an imprisonment on charge of "Blasphemy," it would seem not unlikely that the Scripture expounded at the house of Thomas Young in 1694 (probably Romans viii) might be that in question. Public "disputes" of this kind were then and for many years after in vogue in Connecticut.

² For full title, see publications of John Rogers, at end of Appendix.

³ This fact is revealed by after procedures regarding settlement of the residue of the estate, her death not being found on record.

Return to QUAKERTOWN Online