  1. Yet they seem to have regarded experience and common-sense remedies as a part of natural means, since they made use of ordinary home remedies and good nursing. 2. Although New London, at that time, included all that is now known as Groton, Ledyard, Stonington, Montville, Waterford and East Lyme, we find, by the proportion which James Rogers paid for the support of the minister, that his property amounted to about one-tenth of that of the entire plantation. The minister’s salary was £80 a year. Says Miss Caulkins: “Rate lists for the minister’s tax are extant for the years 1664, 1666 and 1667. In this list the amount of each man’s taxable property is given and the rate levied upon it is carried out. The assessment of James Rogers is nearly double that of any other inhabitant.” His rate was £7 19s. 10d., nearly three times that of Governor Winthrop, which was £2 14s. 3. The first Baptist church of Newport was formed before May, 1639, by some excommunicated members of the church at Boston and others. From its organization, it rejected the supervision of civil magistrates. Dr. John Clarke was its founder and first pastor. In 1671, several member of Mr. Clarke’s church organized themselves into the Sabbatarian or Seventh Day Baptist Church of Newport (then Aquedneck) which James Rogers and his family joined, as above stated. 4. It will be understood that while “profaning” the first day Sabbath, they were strictly keeping the scriptural seventh day Sabbath. 5. For particular account of this and a previous countermove, see Part II, Chap. 2. 6. About 1705, the Rogerene Society came to the conclusion that the Jewish Sabbath and ordinances were, according to the teachings of the New Testament, done away with by the new dispensation, and they began to hold their meetings on Sunday as the more convenient day. See Part II, Chap. VI. 7. During the countermove, 1764-1766. See Part II, Chapter XII. 8. Here John Rogers quotes from Peter Pratt. 9. That this was the true ground, both on the part of the Griswolds and the General Court, is patent in the light of the many evidences, but this being untenable ground for a divorce, an ostensible cause was presented by the Griswolds, which, upon investigation by the grand jury, brought forth “we find not the bill.” The divorce was, therefore, granted upon no legal grounds and with no stated cause. For the authenticated facts, see Part II, Chapter XI. 10. This act was not materially different from the former laws of this kind. 11. We have been unable to find any historical account of Banks and Case; but that any of the Quakers were “lewd men,” is so incredible as to need more proof than the mere assertion of Peter Pratt. 12. Governor Winthrop. 13. Not for baptizing a person, but for going to baptize a person, was Rogers arrested. “Yet,” said Gov. Saltonstall, “there never was any one that suffered on account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this people.” The law against baptizing (other than by the standing order) was simply a fine for every such baptism. 14. Abundant proof of the prominent stand taken by John Rogers himself in behalf of religious liberty will be found not only throughout this volume but by extracts from his writings to be found in Appendix. 15. This “Message” of John Bolles was written when the Rogerenes were not under virulent persecution, of which there was cessation after the death of Gov. Saltonstall (1724) until the time of Mather Byles over thirty years later. See Part II. 16. This is an error. He became a Rogerene after the Rogerene Society had given up the Seventh Day Sabbath. 17. Such religious debates were common in those days between persons of different persuasions, especially ministers, elders, etc. 18. The fact that prim still grows abundantly upon the farm once owned and occupied by John Rogers, may be an exception worthy of note. 19. Apparently, Mr. McEwen judged the Puritan Sabbath to have been one and the same with the “religion of the gospel.” 20. Thomas Turner came to New London, as a young man, about 1721. He married Patience, daughter of John Bolles, in 1727. She died December 18, 1769, aged sixty-one. After her death he married Mary (nÉe Harris), widow of John Waterhouse 2d, and after her death he married Isabel Whitney. His first marriage was by the regular form common with the New London Rogerenes; his second and third marriages were by the Quaker form prevalent in Quakertown at that date, and were recorded by Joseph Bolles, clerk of the Rogerene Society. See Chapter XIV. Thomas Turner lived in Montville. He died in 1791, aged ninety-two. 21. “Secretary Bolles” is mentioned in the Biglow Papers. He wrote an “Essay on Usury and Usury Laws,” published by the Boston Chamber of Commerce, which led to the suspension of usury laws on short bills of exchange. 22. Obituary Notice of Elder Peter Rogers, by Rev. J. M. Peck, D.D., of Illinois. Published in the Minutes of the Pastoral Union for 1850. 23. Later a professor in Chicago University. 24. This young man reproduced, from a description given him by his grandmother, Mrs. Haven, the old John Rogers house, near which Mrs. Haven lived in her youth, and where she used to visit her aunt Elizabeth Rogers. (See the Genealogy entitled “James Rogers and His Descendants,” for the drawing by Mr. Thrall.) 25. Her daughter, Anna Hempstead Branch, is now well known as one of our young poets. 26. Not to be confounded with Bolles Hill where Joshua Bolles resided, which is a mile and a half from above location. 27. The parentage and native place of James Rogers remain undiscovered. He may, or may not, have been the James Rogers who came over in the Increase (Hotten). There were several of the same name and date in New England. There is a tradition in the New London family, which can be traced as far back as 1750, that James Rogers of New London was a grandson, or greatgrandson, of John Rogers the martyr. Up to this date (1904) no proof has been found to substantiate this claim. The same claim has been made by descendants of other first settlers of the name of Rogers, and their traditions are also proven to have been of early date. These long-standing and very persistent traditions may possibly be explained by some future discovery. 28. 1679—James Rogers sells Thos. Parker 50 A. of land that were granted James Rogers of N. London, by the Gen. Court, he being a Pequot soldier.—New London Land Records. Also in “Memorial History of Hartford,” by J. Hammond Trumbull (pub. 1886), p. 81, is a chapter on the Pequot War, by Rev. Increase N. Tarbox, which names the men from Saybrook, viz. “John Underhill, Edward Pattison, James Rogers, Edward Lay, John Gallup and John Wood.” 29. An ancient mill built in 1728, on or very near the site of the first mill, is still standing (see “Hempstead Diary,” page 200). Less than fifty years ago, the cove was a beautiful sheet of water commencing just in front of the mill, separated from it by little more than the width of the winding street, and from thence stretching out in rippling, shining currents to the river. This cove has been so filled in of recent years that considerable imagination must be exercised to reproduce the ancient sweep of clear, blue water known as Winthrop’s Cove. 30. In 1664 he gave his son Samuel land “by the mill” “west side of my wharf.” 31. Occupied by his son-in-law after Mr. Winthrop’s removal to Hartford In 1657. 32. Still to be seen in “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in State Library, Hartford. 33. See same “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors” for Marriage Settlement. 34. In after life he was accustomed to say that it was the richest cargo he ever shipped and the best bargain he ever made.—History of New London. It was a frequent custom in those days, for persons emigrating to the colonies to pay the expenses of their passage by selling their services for a term after landing. Such passengers were called “redemptioners.” Thus, Captain James actually purchased, as the term was, his wife Mary. 35. The account given by their son of this joint conviction of John Rogers and his wife furnishes evidence of a considerable period in which they were in full friendship and accord after the disclosure made to the wife. For account, see Part I, Chapter III. 36. There were, on the law books, so-called capital crimes which were never punished as such. “Man-stealing” was a so-called capital crime, yet we shall find, further on, that it was punishable by an ordinary fine. No mention is made on the court records or files of the crime of which John Rogers was accused by the Griswolds, on charge of which he was examined at Hartford. No record was made of this matter, and we have only vague mention on the court files of the petition of Elizabeth for this divorce by which to even conjecture the nature of the charge. 37. Here is an apparent variation, at the outset, from the Newport church. 38. By negroes is meant negro and Indian servants or slaves, of which there were a number in the Rogers family, the slaves being held for a term of years. 39. That John Rogers could not be induced to either admit or deny the charge presented for the purpose of obtaining the divorce, is from a statement to that effect made by Peter Pratt, in “The Prey Taken from the Strong.” This is one of the few statements made in that pamphlet, which seem likely to be true and are not invalidated by proof to the contrary. It will be seen that, at a later date, this attitude of complete silence is frequent with the Rogerenes, before the court. 40. May 25, 1675. “The testimony against him was his own wife—to whom he told it all with his own mouth, and not in trouble of mind, but in a boasting manner as of free grace, yt he was pardoned. This was much about ye time he fell into yt cursed opinion of anabaptism.”—Journal of Mr. Bradstreet. (See “New England Genealogical and Historical Register,” Vol. 9, p. 47.) With above compare:— “After it pleased God, through His rich grace in Christ Jesus, to take the guilt of my sins from my conscience and to send the Spirit of His Son into my heart, whereby he did reveal unto me His love and His acceptance of me in Jesus Christ, this unspeakable mercy did greatly engage my heart to love God and diligently to search the Scriptures, that thereby I might know how to serve God acceptably, for then I soon became a seeker how to worship God.”—Epistle of John Rogers to the Seventh Day Baptists. “And the coming to witness the truth of those 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.”—John Rogers, Jr.—Reply to Peter Pratt. 41. See preamble to will of James Rogers, Part I., Chapter I. 42. See “History of Stratford.” 43. An evident attempt is made by the Griswolds, in inserting this item in the bill for damages, to lay the illness of Elizabeth following the birth of her child to some failure on the part of the young husband to suitably provide for her confinement. Her son, John Rogers, 2d, however, in his “Reply” to his half-brother, Peter Pratt, mentions a far more serious and lengthy illness that befell Elizabeth upon the birth of her latter son, during which illness both she and her husband, Peter Pratt, Sr., had great misgivings regarding the justice of her divorce from John Rogers. That the illness in either case was of a constitutional origin is indicated by the parallel cases. 44. Elizabeth afterwards appears to have all the rents towards support of the children. Later, when the children are grown, she gives up the farm to John Rogers, for a reasonable consideration, as will be seen. 45. The facts contained in this chapter, not otherwise indicated, are from Letters of Mr. Samuel Hubbard. 46. Prayers an hour or more in length were common at that time. 47. Before long, the Newport church sends Mr. Gibson to live and preach upon the Great Neck, to such Sabbatarians as hold merely with the doctrines and customs of that church. Between this pastor and John Rogers, pastor of the still newer departure, we find no evidence of collision. 48. This farm is afterwards conveyed to Jonathan, with other valuable property, by the will of his father. 49. A prominent Seventh Day Baptist of England. 50. This statement of Governor Leete has been quoted against the Rogerenes again and again. 51. It will be remembered that the officers were themselves liable to be fined if they failed to execute the Sunday laws, and that any religious meetings whatever other than those prescribed by the standing order were against the law, both those holding and those attending such meetings being liable to fine or—in case of non-payment—imprisonment. 52. They were forced to pay for bed and board during imprisonment. Sometimes a prisoner brought a bed of his own. 53. From Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Peter Pratt, 2d. 54. The failing health of James Rogers, Sr., is sufficient to account for his not being arrested for servile work at this time. 55. It will later be seen that the custom, on such occasions, of ejecting disturbers of meeting from the church in a violent manner, was calculated to create a general excitement among the spectators. 56. That no actual relapse to Quakerism had occurred at the time should have been evident from the fact that John Rogers is, even in this very month of June, baptizing, and undoubtedly as usual administering the Lord’s Supper, ordinances to which the Quakers were entirely opposed. 57. See “Prey Taken from the Strong,” and Reply to same by John Rogers, 2d. 58. See Part I, Chap. I. For full preamble, see “James Rogers and His Descendants,” by J. S. Rogers, Boston. 59. In point of fact, only one of the children made any complaint regarding boundaries; but this complaint resulted in a suit that was carried through several courts. Undoubtedly, by a cursory view of this frequently appearing suit and also that of Samuel Beebe, on the records, Miss Caulkins judged that there was a general “contention.” Rev. Mr. Blake, in his Church History—New London Congregational—in adopting this error of Miss Caulkins, has rendered it that “the children” of James Rogers “engaged in bitter controversies” over his estate. 60. Stephen Prentis eventually became one of the prominent and wealthy citizens of the place, a holder of local and colonial offices, captain of a train band, attorney and also a farmer on a large scale. He was a member of the Congregational church through life, as was also his wife. Their home farm was near what is now Mill Stone Point. 61. Miss Caulkins states that his mother afterwards attempted to secure his return to her, but could not succeed in overcoming his determination to remain with his father. The evidence of this has escaped our observation. 62. His son states (see Part I) that his imprisonments amounted to one-third of his life after his conversion, viz.: one-third of the period between 1674 and 1721. 63. Contributions of articles, even of clothing, for the poor, for the minister or for church adornment, and other purposes, were common in those days; and for such donations there was a large box, quite stationary, and usually near the pulpit. This appears not to have been known to Miss Caulkins, who supposes a box to have been passed around, as the box for money contributions of later times. 64. For Apology, see Part I, Chap. I. 65. This thirteen acres is called a “grant to Robert Hempstead” “in the first division.” It is probably the lot belonging to the house she occupies, viz.: the home lot of her husband. It is a part of the land willed to Captain James. 66. It afterwards appears that this movable estate included a number of young slaves, commonly called “servants.” 67. It appears it was the intention of the widow that Joan should not be transferred to Elizabeth until after her own decease; since we do not find Samuel Beebe claiming and demanding her until some time after that event, although it appears evident that this gift was designated by the widow at about this time, 1692. 68. By the codicil John and Bathsheba are first to take what they wish of “the things about the house,” the other movables “whatsoever” to be divided by John, Bathsheba and James among themselves. 69. This may refer in part to his mother’s deposition, which figured in the evidence before the arbiters to the effect that Joseph had “not just cause to molest Jonathan.” 70. This protest by Joseph’s wife is recorded on the New London land records, under the deed of gift of 1670. 71. Mr. Thomas Young must have been an earnest seeker after truth, or he would not have braved the opposition of his Congregational friends by opening his house to a meeting of the Rogerenes. He appears to have been a son, or grandson, of Rev. John Young, of Southold, L.I., a Puritan of so true a stamp that he was forbidden to embark for America. Evidently New London did not prove a satisfactory residence for Mr. Thomas Young, since he eventually removed to Southold, where his friendship with John Rogers continued, as also after his later removal to Oyster Bay, L.I. 72. For record evidence, see Chapter V. 73. Apparently the Scripture expounded on this occasion was Romans viii. 74. Probably shoes of his own manufacture. 75. It is from the account of Mr. Bownas (conversation with John Rogers) we gain knowledge that there were “goods” in the wheelbarrow, which were offered for sale before the pulpit. The court record mentions only the wheelbarrow. Mr. Bownas had evidently a mixed recollection of this portion of John Roger’s conversation (relating to work, etc., upon the first day Sabbath), since he appears to suppose this was a thing that might have happened more than once, whereas it was an extraordinary measure suited to an extraordinary occasion, and one which would surely receive court notice and record. In his conversation with Mr. Bownas, John Rogers also said, in this connection, “that the provocations he met with from the priests, who stirred up the people and the mob against him, might sometimes urge him further than he was afterwards easy with in opposing them, but that when he kept his place he had inexpressible comfort and peace in what he did;” adding, “the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God.” 76. “I John Rogers, a servant of Jesus Christ, here make an open declaration of war against the great red dragon and against the beast to which he gives power; and against the false church that rides upon the beast; and against the false prophets who are established by the dragon and the beast; and also a proclamation of derision against the sword of the devil’s spirit, which is prisons, stocks, whips, fines and revilings, all of which is to defend the religion of devils.” 77. The “&c.” is of the record. 78. 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. 79. After diligent search, no evidence has been found of enmity on the part of the Rogerenes towards the Stonington church. 80. 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 could have escaped exposure and penalty.” 81. 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. 82. Where he was doubtless confined for his “disturbance outside the meeting house” in the recent countermove, the “ten stripes” being too mild a punishment. 83. A very distinct glimpse of the power given to ministers of the standing order in state legislation. 84. The words spoken do not appear on record. 85. It would be interesting to know exactly what doctrine or doctrines were involved. By the occurrence of this suit so soon after John Roger’s 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. 86. For full title, see publications of John Rogers, at end of Appendix. 87. This fact is revealed by after procedures regarding settlement of the residue of the estate, her death not being found on record. 88. The County Court record says Mary was fined for “threatening” to pour scalding water on the head of the collector. Miss Caulkins inadvertently says she was fined for “pouring” the same. 89. In this treatise “On Divorce,” he shows that the New Testament admits but one cause for divorce, and does not admit adultery as a cause. Therefore (by inference), although, by her after marriages, his first wife leads an adulterous life (see statement of his son, Part I., Chapter IV.), he does not consider that this fact releases him from his marriage bond. But since, by the law of God (“Mosaic” and still prevailing in the time of Christ), a man was allowed another than his first and chiefest wife, in taking Mary Ransford for his wife under the forced separation from his first wife, he breaks no law of God. Not that he so much as mentions himself, Elizabeth or Mary in this treatise; but the above is plainly inferable to those acquainted with his history at this period. Since, in granting the divorce to Elizabeth, the court left him free to marry again, he broke no civil law in taking another wife. 90. It may be left to legal judgment to decide whether this marriage was not more in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law than was the divorce granted by the General Court of Connecticut, through no testimony save that of a wife, bent on divorce, against her husband, regarding a matter which he had confided to her in marital confidence; said divorce being granted in the very face of the “we find not the bill” rendered by the grand jury in regard to the charge made by the wife. 91. Everything involved in the command to “render to CÆsar,” etc., being a law of Christ, he held binding, as regarded ordinary civil legislation. 92. Mary’s account in her petition to the General Court, 1703. See “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Court Files. 93. The statements in this paragraph are from an affidavit still extant at New London, in the handwriting of John Rogers. 94. “Prey Taken from the Strong.” 95. See account of this court scene, by John Rogers, 2d. (Part I., Chapter V.). 96. Miss Caulkins states that Mary was threatened by this court with heavy penalties if she returned to John Rogers. Although the evidence of this has escaped our notice, Miss Caulkins doubtless came across such evidence. 97. This “afraid of my life” is a common expression, and was especially so formerly, by way of emphasis. Matthew Beckwith could not have been actually afraid of his life in regard to a man whose principles did not allow of the slightest show of physical force in dealing with an opponent. Although the court record says that John Rogers “used threatening words against Matthew Beckwith,” on presentation by Matthew Beckwith’s complaint, this does not prove any intention of physical injury. 98. This by his statement to Mr. Bownas at this date. 99. This shows us that at a date long prior to the time when we shall find a sturdy band of Rogerene youth, of Rogers and of Bolles blood, on Quaker Hill, there was no lack of young people in training to carry forward this cause. 100. He makes no mention of this occurrence in his book. 101. “Prey Taken from the Strong.” 102. Their services for preaching and expounding were always public; their (evening) meetings for prayer and praise were for believers, after the manner of the early church. 103. “Things about the house John and Bathsheba must take them first before the others be divided.”—Codicil. 104. The pedigree of John Bolles in the male line is traceable to time of the Conqueror. The name is on the Roll of Battle Abbey. 105. The Thomas Bolles place is now the Lyman Allyn farm on the Norwich road. Just south of the Allyn house is the site of an old well. By this well stood the house of Thomas Bolles, where occurred the murder of his wife and two children, leaving only the babe, John. (For particulars, see “Bolles Genealogy.”) 106. His house stood just south of present house of Mr. Calvert. His father’s home farm was about one-fourth of a mile south of this point. 107. John Bolles further says in regard to the persecution he suffered upon joining the Rogerenes: “God gave me such a cheerful spirit in this warfare, that when I had not the knowledge that the grand-jury man saw me at work on said day, I would inform against myself before witness, till they gave out and let me plow and cart and do whatsoever I have occasion on that day.” Here will be recognized an imitation of the early policy of the Rogerenes in time of persecution, a policy likely to have been recommended to all their followers; viz.: to give their opponents so much more trouble when molesting them than when letting them alone that the institution of a season of severe measures will be the less liable to occur. This is the policy recognizable in the countermove, so sure to take place in time of severe persecution. 108. It will be seen that as late as 1716 (see Chapter IX.), so prominent a Rogerene as John Bolles was even declared to be “ignorant of this law.” That he ignored it, with all other ecclesiastical laws, is more likely to have been the case. 109. A Baptist church springs up at Groton and one on the Great Neck. The Baptist edifice on the Great Neck (“Pepper Box”) is used in an admirably liberal and pacific manner by both the regular Baptists and the Seventh Day Baptists. The leading members of these two friendly societies are largely of Rogers descent;—descendants of Captain James and of Joseph being of the first-day persuasion, and those of Jonathan of the seventh day, as a rule. Since the history of these societies on the Great Neck has been given by Miss Caulkins more largely than would be possible in this work, the reader is referred to the “History of New London” for particulars regarding them. 110. For what cause or by what pretense this imprisonment occurs does not appear. It is revealed by a statement made by Peter Pratt himself. (“Prey Taken from the Strong.”) In referring to his being imprisoned with other Rogerenes, he speaks of his wife as a bride at that time. He was married in 1709. 111. In his own large inventory is no mention of any slaves. 112. In lieu of other suitable accommodation in New London this edifice continued to be used, for some time, for sessions of this court.—(For John Roger’s account of this trial, see Part I., Chapter V.) 113. Why seizures at this time are confined to this piece of land, can only be conjectured. At this date, the Mamacock land still lay under the attachment of the new executor, James, Jr., and so was safe from this sort of seizure. The attachment by James, Jr., was evidently a mere blind, and it served a double purpose. 114. For John Roger’s description of this prison and his imprisonment, see Part I., Chapter V. 115. This house is a tavern, and has in it the ordinary prison. It is near the Mill Cove. 116. They could not so remind the court, it being contrary to the will for them to give up their executorship, or to have anything to do with the court. 117. The esteem and affection in which Bathsheba was held by her husband, Samuel Fox, may be estimated by the fact that he not only gave valuable lands to her sons by Richard Smith in her lifetime, but, although he had married again, left by will, sixteen years after her death, to her sons by the name of Smith, yet living (James and John), £40 each, and to her three daughters by Richard Smith, £10 each. 118. This deed must have been written in prison. It is recorded among New London land deeds. 119. This due to him was £200 secured by note, and paid to him by the executor. 120. What follows (as far as December, 1713), is derived from statements of John Rogers (see Part I., Chapter V.), from records of Superior Court in New London March 26, and from record of County Court of New London, before which court were arraigned those who prevented the seizure of John Rogers without a warrant. 121. This entrance is thus described on the court records:— “John Rogers coming into her Majesty’s Superior Court and behaving himself in a furious, raving manner with mighty crying and tumultuous noise, and it being certified to this court that ye said Rogers had gotten some and was endeavoring to gather a greater number of idle, vagrant persons by a like raving management of himself, and designed and engaged to dip them in ye water and said that he would baptise one of them.” When we remember that the “idle, vagrant persons” accompanying him were no less substantial citizens than John Rogers, Jr., John Bolles and men of that stamp, this record assumes the character of a misrepresentation throughout. Also the contradiction in the record that John Rogers “designed to dip” an indefinite number “in the water,” with statement that he said he would baptise “one,” is significant. No court record regarding John Rogers but must have been penned with careful reference to the appearance of his offense before the public, by precaution of those in charge, who were his enemies. 122. That Capt. James, like his brother John, gave up the seventh-day sabbath, adopting the first day for religious services, is indicated by the fact that those of his children that remained Baptists were first-day Baptists. The same is true of the family of Joseph Rogers, many of whose descendants were (and are) Baptists of the regular persuasion. Nothing has been found to disprove the supposition that Capt. James Rogers and his wife and Joseph Rogers and his wife continued in the Rogerene faith to the end. John Rogers had many followers, while the names of only a few of those more conspicuous in leadership are revealed to us by the court records. The fact that certain sons of Capt. James and of Joseph inclined to, and finally united with, the Congregational church readily accounts for the less prominent stand of their parents. 123. See John Rogers, 2d, Part I., Chapter V. 124. “Prey Taken from the Strong.” 125. In fact, the wife of John Rogers was discharged the day after the occurrence. She, being a regular Quaker, came under different laws from the Rogerenes and appears to have been treated with some leniency. Her coming from the State of New York and from a prominent Quaker community in that State may have had something to do with this leniency. 126. “And first I grant that the governor did actually make this promise, viz., that, to persuade us to forbear, if we would be quiet and worship God in our own way according to our consciences, he would punish any of their people that should disturb our worship,—and that it was in a Public Court before a multitude of hearers.”—John Rogers, 2d. We find after intimation by John, 2d, that this promise of the governor was not kept. 127. About four months before and evidently a town court and the one referred to by John Bolles. 128. Here is recognizable the “inner prison” described by John Rogers. 129. This child was Joshua Bolles, grandfather of Mr. John R. Bolles. 130. The following is from the “Hempstead Diary:”—“1719, Sept. 6, Sun. Jno. Rogers and his crew made a disturbance—the midst of prayer time They came in a horse cart. Committed to prison at night.” 131. See Appendix for “Request of John Rogers from New London Prison, November 17, 1719,” which seems to be connected with this charge against Sarah Bolles. 132. The following, from Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Justice Backus, appears to indicate the usual manner of this interference, although referring, in this particular case, to the church at Norwich.—“And several times since, when we have passed by their meeting-house along the road towards our own meeting, their constable has prest a considerable number of men out of their meeting house, who with horses have followed hard after us with ungoverned zeal, and have stopped us and made prisoners of us for the sake of our religion.” 133. It was the Rogerene custom when arraigned for countermove offenses, either to make no reply to this court query or to reply “not guilty,” in the sense of having done nothing wrong. We occasionally find John Bolles replying that he will “be judged by God and not by man.” 134. Jacob Waterhouse married Ann Douglass (daughter of Mr. Robert Douglass and Mary Hempstead, daughter of Robert Hempstead). John was their oldest child, born, 1690. 135. Viz., homestead of Jacob Waterhouse, 1st, one of the planters of New London. 136. Daughter of John Culver and recently married to John Waterhouse. 137. Here it may be well to refer to the mode of distribution of the works of this author. He appears to have himself carried many of them about New England, going long journeys on horseback, the books in his portmanteau. This not only gave him opportunity to circulate his writings more extensively, but to discourse with people at a distance, and also to preach in various places. He must in such, as well as in other more evident ways, have been extensively known and famous in his day. This accounts for his dedication of the above-mentioned volume “To the Flock Scattered Throughout New England.” John Bolles circulated many of his own books in like manner. 138. “John Rogers and several of his Society (having as good a right to the New London meeting-house as any in the town) did propose to hold our meeting there at noon-time, between the meeting of the other congregation, so as not to disturb them in either of their meetings. And, accordingly, we met there, and finding their meeting not ended, we stood without the door until their forenoon meeting was ended and the people came out, and then John Rogers told them our design was to make no disturbance, but to hold our meeting while they were at dinner, and when they were ready for the afternoon meeting we would desist and go away. Whereupon I heard no person manifest any dislike of our proceedings. Whereupon, John Rogers went into the seat which the town officers seated him in after the meeting house was built” (viz., rebuilt) “and proceeded to expound a chapter in the Bible. But in the time of our meeting, the constable was sent with a warrant to break up our meeting, and was attended with a rude company of men, who began to haul men and women out of meeting, committing some to prison, as did Paul in his unconverted state. And when Sarah Bolles saw the constable and his attendant carrying her husband to prison by his arms and legs, with his belly downward, in a very cruel manner, she and Josiah Gates, another of our Society, went to the Governor minding him of his late promise to defend us in our meetings from any that should disturb us and desired him that her husband might not be so abused, but all the relief they had, Josiah Gates received a box on the ear from the governor’s own hand, and they were both turned out of doors by the governor, and the next day the governor sat judge himself of the matter and bound over J. Rogers to the County Court, charging him with a riot, though all he did was to expound a chapter as aforesaid, and all that his people did was to attend to his exposition, in as quiet a manner as was ever in any meeting in the king’s dominions, till the constable with his rude attendants made the disturbance. However, the court fined John Rogers 10 shillings and the charges. Execution was given out, and the sheriff first took ten sheep and then a milch cow”—“And I do further add that I know of no protection that we have met with from the authority, relating to our worship but what has been of the same nature.”—Reply of John Rogers, 2d, to Peter Pratt. For account of the same by John Rogers, Sr., see Part I., Chapter V. 139. In the first place, he (J. Backus) asserts that our infallible spirit deceived us as it did john Rogers, who pretended from the inspiration that he was proof against all infection of body etc. Now I am fully persuaded that John Rogers never spake those words, but that J. Backus is highly guilty of slandering him in his grave concerning this matter. He also adds that to put the matter upon trial he daringly ventured into Boston in the time of the small pox, but received the infection and died of it, with several of his family. Now how presumptuous and censorious a judgment it is for him to assert that his going to Boston was daringly to put the matter upon trial, when it was well known that it had been his practice for more than forty years past to visit all sick persons as often as he had opportunity, and particularly those who had the small pox; when in the height of their distemper he has sat on their bedside several hours at a time, discoursing of the things of God; so that his going to Boston the last time, was no other than his constant practice had been ever since he made a profession of religion. Now it is certain that John Rogers in his lifetime, and all his Society to this day, do firmly believe, from the testimony of the Scriptures, that God’s protection is with his faithful children through the course of this life, to continue them to old age (notwithstanding the calamities that he sends on the earth), except when He calls them to lay down their lives for his truth by way of martyrdom, as may be seen abundantly in Scripture, Job 5, 26. Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in his season. Psalm 91, 16, With long life will I satisfy him etc. Now the age of man is set forth in Scripture to be seventy years, as is to be seen Psal. 90, 10. Now although we have the Scripture plentifully to confirm us in this principle of God’s protecting his faithful children to old age etc., yet we know it is appointed for all men once to die, according to what is written Heb. 9, 27, and by what manner of death it may please God to take them to himself, after he hath preserved them to old age, he has not revealed, and therefore neither J. Rogers in his lifetime, nor any of his Society since his death, has undertaken to decide the matter; judging it to be one of those secret things which God hath not revealed to us, and therefore is not our business to meddle with, according to what is written, Deut. 28, 29. The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things that are revealed belong unto us &c. Now let every unprejudiced reader take notice how little cause J. Backus has to reflect John Roger’s manner of death upon him, who lived to the age of seventy-three years, and then died in his own house on his own bed, having his reason continued to the last, and manifesting his peace with God and perfect assurance of a better life. He had also a very easy death, without any struggling or striving as is common to many people.—Answer of John Rogers, 2d, to J. Backus. 140. In Inventory, watch, portmanteau and jackboots, also besides saddle, etc., a “male pillion,” indicating a frequent companion in his journeyings. 141. The only house built at Scotch Cap before the present century was built about 1740, by Capt. Benj. Greene. Until within a few years, the cellar of that house remained and also the chimney. It was called “the chimney lot.” 142. “Although the practice of it” (half-way covenant) “did not begin here” (New London) “until Mr. Saltonstall’s pastorate, yet it was in the air, was practiced by most of the leading churches in the Colony. But when the pastorate of Mr. Saltonstall began, we find that the new way had gained a foothold. It was known as the Presbyterian way. It was the system of all national churches, ... all persons of good moral character living within the parochial bounds were to have, as in England and Scotland, the privilege of baptism for their children and access to the Lord’s table. (Ecc. His. of Conn., pp. 28, 29.) It is to be understood that this refers to persons who laid no claims to regenerate character. There was no awakening in this church” (New London Congregational) “nor indeed in N. Eng. worth mentioning before 1748—effect on this church may be seen in the fact that during the first half century of its existence not over 200 members were received and a full century of its life passed without a religious awakening.”—From History of First Congregational Church of New London, by Rev. Mr. Blake. 143. This may account for the traditions credited by Miss Caulkins of some sort of entrance into that church. (“History of Norwich.”) It is possible that attacks from this church were only to be held in check by some significant warning; but that there was any disturbance of meeting seems disproven by absence of any court record to that effect. The law regarding disturbance of meeting is very explicit, calling for presentation before the County Court. If any person shall come to any church or congregation, either established or allowed by the laws of this colony, and disquiet and disturb the same, such person or persons upon proof thereof before any assistant or justice of the peace, by two sufficient witnesses, shall be bound in £50 for appearance at next County Court, and in default of same to be committed to prison to remain until sitting of said court, and upon conviction of said offence shall suffer the penalty of £20. 144. No proof of refusal to pay these fines appears until a much later date. 145. Then said these men; We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.—Daniel 6, 5. 146. Viz.: by their principles of non-resistance. 147. This refers to the pew built for the Governor near the pulpit. Miss Caulkins (“History New London”) mentions a similar contention between prominent members of this church, under a somewhat earlier date, in which the case was carried to court for final decision. Two of the three sons of Governor Saltonstall, Nathaniel and Gurdon, remained in New London. Rosewell, the eldest, settled in Blanford and died in 1738. Of him Mr. Hempstead says in his Diary:—“he was an Incomparable, well Disposed Gentleman, a good Christian Gurdon, 2d, was a leading man in New London and held numerous important offices. Mr. Hempstead calls him “Col. Saltonstall” as early as 1740. He lived in the Saltonstall homestead and marshalled his fourteen children in the family procession for church every Sunday, after the example of his father, the governor. (“History of New London.”) His eldest child, Gurdon, 3d, was born in 1734, and his second, Dudley, in 1736. 148. It is shown by Hempstead’s Diary that Hannah Plumb was daughter of John Plumb and baptized, as an infant, in the Congregational church, December, 1723, also that her father was a nephew of Mr. Hempstead, and her mother a daughter of Mr. Peter Harris. A son of her uncle, Peter Plumb, married a granddaughter of John Bolles. 149. They first settled in Morris County, N.J.—Schooley’s Mountain—but soon moved south to above location. About eleven years later, they seem to have returned to Schooley’s Mountain. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, many of these New Jersey Rogerenes are said to have removed to the “red stone country,” supposed to be Virginia. Most of them had names indicative of Groton origin, as Waterhouse, Mann, Lamb, etc., showing that other Groton people either accompanied the Culvers to New Jersey or joined them there. It would be interesting to know more of the New Jersey Rogerenes than has been discovered. Very naturally, various fabrications regarding the New London Rogerenes have become attached to them also, simply because they were of the same sect. 150. Upon his gravestone is inscribed:—“In memory of Abraham Weair. Died March 24, 1768, aged 85 years. Whose innocent life adorned true light.” 151. The following brief but explicit counsel to his followers by John Rogers, Sr., contained in one of his books, under the heading here given, is all that has been found in Rogerene writings regarding the doctrine of divine healing:— CONCERNING GOD’S MINISTRATION BY SICKNESS. In Time of Sickness, Ake or Pain, we are to examine our own Hearts, to see and find out the cause of God’s Chastisement, and to look up to Him who wounds, and whose Hands alone make whole, who is the same Yesterday, Today and forever; and to attend the Apostle Jame’s Direction. James 5, 13 etc. If any Man among you be afflicted, let him pray; is any merry, let him sing Psalms; is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oyl in the Name of the Lord; and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed Sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your Faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much.—J. R. 152. The “History of the German Sectaries” (Philadelphia, 1899) by Julius F. Sachse, gives an account of this New London visit derived from the Journal of the Pilgrims. By that history, it will be seen that these Ephrata brethren were men of learning, and had at the Cloister a printing-press, from which issued numerous publications, in both German and English type. Products of this press are among the rarest specimens of Americana. 153. Since John Rogers resided as a pastor on the Great Neck from 1675 to 1699 he had undoubtedly a following of that locality. 154. Her first child was baptized in the Congregational church, but the other children do not appear on the Congregational church records, by which it may be judged that she was brought over to her husband’s views in this particular. 155. The early graves still discernible in this old family burying-ground are marked by natural, uninscribed stones, which was the ordinary mode before gravestones came into common use in New England. In family burying-places, on farms or in out-of-the-way places, the lack of inscriptions continued to a comparatively late period. Many such old family burying-places have been long obliterated. The preservation of this one is probably due to its being secured by deed. (See New London Record, November 13, 1751.) It is said that, despite the lack of inscriptions, descendants in the earlier part of the nineteenth century could tell who was buried in each of the old graves. The railroad has cut off a portion of this burial ground, which originally extended to the verge of the river. Tradition states that some of the graves on the river bank were washed away at the time of the great September gale (1813). 156. There are numerous allusions to John Rogers, 2d, in the “Hempstead Diary,” but a number of references to “John Rogers,” which in the published Diary are credited to John, 2d, refer to his cousin, Capt. John Rogers, of Great Neck vicinity, as does the statement under October 4, 1735, that John Rogers “girdled the apple trees” on the “Crossman lot.” This “Crossman lot,” on the Great Neck, by “Lower Mamacock,” was in litigation between Capt. John Rogers and Mr. Hempstead, for some time, and was finally accorded to Mr. Hempstead. “Lower Mamacock” by “lower Alewife Cove,” is easily confounded with “Upper Mamacock,” by “upper Alewife Cove,” although they are six or seven miles apart. 157. This coopering establishment was located on Main Street, by the Mill Cove, on land which had been given him by his father in 1725 (New London Record); it bordered the Mill Cove and there was a wharf belonging to it. Tradition has confounded this James with his son James, the only son of the former who reached middle life. James, Jr., was remembered by some of the older people of the middle of the nineteenth century and familiarly called “Jimmy Rogers.” He succeeded to the business of his father, by the Mill Cove, and continued it on a still larger scale, packing beef of his own preparation, in barrels of his own manufacture, and shipping it to southern markets. He was a very successful business man; but the piety conspicuous in the character of his father is not ascribable to this James, who appears not to have made any profession of the Christian faith. He was a young man at the time of the persecution of the Society to which his father belonged, which was instituted by the denomination of which his mother was a member, and which resulted in the blood-curdling scenes attendant upon the countermove of 1764-6. Such scenes enacted by professing Christians, in vengeful punishment of other professing Christians, were calculated to make anything but a religious impression upon a youth of the strictly practical turn of mind that is ascribed to this James. 158. The farm now (1904) occupied by Mr. Henry Benham is a portion of what was the James Rogers farm. A southern portion of the latter was sold by heirs of James, Jr., to the Lewis brothers. The farm inherited by Samuel Rogers is now owned by Mr. Stephen Comstock. Mamacock proper, left to John Rogers, 3d, is the farm now owned by Mr. Fitzgerald, including Mamacock peninsula. Each of these farms had, originally, pasture and woodland on the west side of the Norwich road. All of the above farms were valuable in old times, when clearings were the exception, being rich lands carefully cultivated. 159. Specimens of his penmanship still extant, would compare favorably with that of modern masters. These specimens are in possession of Mr. Gilbert Rogers, of Quaker Hill. 160. The liberal salary, for those times, accorded this very young man was £100 per annum and a gratuity of £240 every four years. Yet we soon find him complaining of the insufficiency of his salary. 161. After the terrible scenes which have been brought about by his policy, we find him, even in taking leave of the Congregational church, complaining that the laws against the Rogerenes are “not enforced.” If in the day of his disaster he is making such complaint, what must have been his urgency at the time of his confident entry upon this scene? 162. See extracts from “Reply to Mr. Byles,” by Joseph Bolles, in Appendix. 163. There are traditions among descendants of the Rogerenes to the effect that one of the features of the persecution that called forth the countermove of 1764-6 was molestation of the Rogerenes for not attending regular (“lawful”) meetings. This tradition is found in different families situated far apart. Mr. John R. Bolles received such a statement from his mother (who was a daughter of John Rogers, 3d). Since this history asserts nothing upon tradition, this cannot be stated as a proven fact, although it appears fully probable. 164. There are said to be indications (J. S. Sachse) that memorial services for Ebenezer Bolles, as entertainer of the Pilgrims in 1744, were held at the Ephrata Cloister. In a reference to his death, on the records of the Cloister, is this invocation: “God grant him a blessed resurrection!” 165. The ineffectiveness of medicines and applications to even alleviate the symptoms of such poisoning, after the malady is fully under way, is well known. Yet neither with nor without the use of medical means would death be expected to ensue in such a case. That there was an unsuspected complication in this instance, leading to sudden death, seems probable. To persons living in the country, as did the Rogerenes for the most part, an illness so common as poisoning by ivy or by alder (apparently the latter in this case) would not be regarded of a really dangerous character, however distressing. There have been persons greatly bloated and in great suffering by such poison, whose condition gave no serious alarm and who recovered in the usual period. 166. Quakertown traditions regarding this period are no less thrilling than those of New London side, and point to measures reaching even into the wilds of Groton. Only by spies and officials in the vicinity of the Groton Rogerenes, could they have been made to share in the persecution. As before said, most of their neighbors were Baptists. A historical account of the Baptist church of that vicinity avers, apparently from tradition, that some of the Groton Rogerenes came to that church in this period, bringing work, interrupting the minister, etc. If the Groton Rogerenes were seriously molested by these Baptists, it is not unlikely that they instituted a countermove on that church for protection; but we have been unable to discover any proof of the accuracy of the statement regarding disturbance of the Baptist meetings, no record regarding such disturbance having been found, or any contemporary mention of the same. (See “Quakertown Chapter.”) The fact that the Rogerene leaders of Groton were closely related to some on the New London side, added to the fact that they were church brethren, is sufficient to account for their joining with the Quaker Hill people in the New London countermove. John Waterhouse had a son of the same name living on Quaker Hill at this time, on a farm that had been given to him by his father. 167. It was usually in the time of this unscriptural prayer that the countermove took place. 168. Mr. Byles, having precipitately left New London and the country to receive Episcopal orders in England, his “forsaken congregation” (Caulkins) criticised and ridiculed him mercilessly, even to lampoons (see “History of New London”), among which was one called “The Proselyte,” which was sung to the tune of “The Thief and the Cordelier.” He afterwards became an Episcopal minister in Boston, but in the time of the Revolution was a royalist and a refugee, among those prohibited from returning to Massachusetts. He was succeeded in the Congregational church at New London by Rev. Ephraim Woodbridge, grandson of the first Congregational minister of Groton, of the same name. Mr. Woodbridge was a most estimable man. He allowed of no admission to church membership without evidence of conversion, contrary to the practice so long in vogue in New London previous to his ministry. It is a notable fact that certain families belonging to the Congregational church before this season of persecution, are afterwards found members of another denomination. It is unlikely that the popularity of this church was other than injured by the fame of this exploit, the effect of which, as well as the new rule for admission, may help to account for the fact that by 1776 there were but five men on its roll of membership. It will be remembered that some members of this church were allied to the Rogerenes, while others were evidently liberal and friendly. 169. Of John Bolles, 4th (on his mother’s side a grandson of Joseph Bolles), who served in the Revolution on board armed vessels of Connecticut, and died on board a prison ship of the enemy, it was said, by one who knew him, that he was “a young man of extraordinary intelligence, information and gallantry.” 170. In his will, dated 1727, Samuel Whipple left the iron-works and saw-mill to his son Daniel; his lands with buildings to be divided between his sons Samuel, Zacharia and Zephania. The portion of Zacharia sold in 1734 for £1,000. 171. The first of the name who came to Quakertown was Samuel Whipple (son of above Noah and Hope), born in 1766, a man of most estimable character and devotedly attached to peace principles. His brother Silas also settled in Quakertown. Samuel is ancestor of those of the name now resident in that locality. 172. At the same date, Andrew Davis must also have been advanced in years. 173. The tone and style of this work as a whole are in marked contrast to the works of John Rogers, 1st, John Rogers, 2d, and John Bolles, whose writings, although earnest, are of a very dispassionate character. 174. It is very possible that this Society refused to pay military fines from the first; but no record of such refusal has been found. 175. An original printed copy of this Petition is extant in Quakertown. 176. The old meeting-house is upon land which was part of the farm occupied by John Waterhouse, and afterwards by his son Timothy. 177. Town records reveal one of these as a freeman, years after, in a neighboring town, a respected colored man, with an exceptionally lively family of children. 178. Great-grandson of John Rogers, 2d, and of John Bolles. 179. This information was furnished by a native of Quakertown who attended this meeting—Mr. Ira Whipple, afterwards of Westerly. 180. In Mr. Bowna’s account of his conversation with John Rogers (1703) he states that John Rogers said his Society “admitted any one who wanted information concerning the meaning of any text to put the question, and it was then expounded and spoken to as they understood it; and one being admitted to show his dissent with his reasons for it: ‘Thus,’ said he, ‘we improve our youth in Scriptural knowledge.’ I asked him if they did not sometimes carry their differences in sentiment too far, to their hurt? He acknowledged there was danger in doing so, but they guarded against it as much as they could.” 181. In his last sickness, Elder Zephania Watrous sent for the leader of the party which had opposed his conservative views and asked forgiveness for anything on his own part that might have seemed unfriendly to his opponent. 182. It is not to be inferred that no new families have come into Quakertown, or that none of the people have married outside. Accessions to this community have been not infrequent, both by marriage and otherwise. 183. Quakertown is said not to be so rocky and sterile as it appears to a person riding over the road, but to have a considerable amount of good farming-land. 184. The following is from a poem by Mrs. Benham, entitled “Peace.” Where is the nation brave enough to say, “I have no need of sword, or shield, or gun; I will disarm before the world this day; I will stand free, though lonely, ’neath the sun. “I fear no foe, since I am friend to all; I fear no evil, since I wish no harm; I will not keep my soldier sons in thrall; They shall be slaves no more—let them disarm!” That State will stand upon the heights of time Foremost in honor, bravest of the brave; Girded with glory, radiant, sublime, This shall her title be, “The strong to save!” While other nations boast of arms or art, She, ’lone of earth shall stand, the truly great! Brave in forbearance, loftiness of heart, The world shall see, in her, a Christian State. Boast not your bravery, O, ye fearful ones, Ye trembling nations armed with coward steel, Who hide yourselves behind your conscript sons And trample freedom with an iron heel! Vaunt not your righteousness, nor dare to call Yourselves by His high name, the Prince of Peace, The holy Christ of God, Who died for all, That love might reign and sin and sorrow cease. My country! O, my country! strong and free, Dare thou the godlike deed that waits thy hand. Within thy walls wed Peace to Liberty— Say to thy soldier sons, “Disarm! Disband!” Set thou the step for Freedom’s stately march; The Old World after thee shall fall in line. Follow the pole star crowning heaven’s high arch, The Star of Peace with radiance divine. “All men are equal!” graved in lines of light, Through storm and stress this motto doth not fail; All men are brothers! set thy virgin might To prove man’s brotherhood; thou shalt prevail. Thou shalt prevail, my country, in the strength Of Him who guides the spheres and lights the sun; And joy shall reign through all thy breadth and length, And thou shalt hear the gracious voice, “Well done!” 185. Jonathan Whipple was born in 1794. He never attended school, but it was not from lack of inclination, for he most ardently desired an education. The reader from which his mother taught him his letters he learned so thoroughly that he could repeat it verbatim. In arithmetic he had no instruction further than the fundamental rules, but while he was yet a boy he learned enough of numbers to answer for ordinary occasions. His father set him his first copies in writing, but he improved so rapidly that he soon needed better instruction and got neighboring school-teachers to write copies for him. Ere many years had elapsed, he had no need of copies, since he ranked in penmanship among the first. Although Mr. Whipple was a hard-working mason, he so much felt the need of more education than he possessed, that, after he had married and settled down in life, he set about informing himself more thoroughly than his previous opportunities had allowed. He so far qualified himself, that he was employed several terms to teach a school of over seventy pupils. In point of discipline and promptness of education his school ranked first in town. He contributed many articles to various papers, touching on the great topics before the public. The temperance cause received his hearty support, for he was a total abstinence man, at a time when even the most respectable men regularly took their “grog.” He was an abolitionist of the most radical type long before the names of Garrison and Phillips were known in the land. As an advocate for universal peace, he was found among the pioneers in the cause. In short, he was a philanthropist in the broadest and truest sense of the word; he labored all his life for the good of his fellow-creatures. He was kind and generous; was never engaged in a law-suit in his life, and spent more time with the sick than any other non-professional man of our acquaintance. In the summer of 1820 the typhoid fever raged in his neighborhood; he spent his whole time, without a thought of reward, among the sufferers. His blameless and useful life made him respected and beloved wherever he was known. The fame, however, that he acquired was chiefly due to his remarkable success in teaching the deaf to talk. When the youngest of his five children was old enough to walk, he noticed that, although the boy seemed active and intelligent, he made no effort to speak. The discovery that his little Enoch was actually deaf, was a trial which seemed greater than he could endure. To think that this (his youngest) son must be forever shut out of the world of sound and doomed to endless silence was unendurable. After many fruitless trials to make the boy hear and repeat what he heard, the father gave it up as useless. Mr. Whipple had never heard of the schools in Europe where the deaf are taught articulation and lip-reading; but, at length, noticing that Enoch would sometimes attempt to repeat a word, if he was looking directly at the speaker’s mouth, the thought occurred to the father that perhaps every word had a shape, and that by learning the shape of each letter, as moulded by the mouth, the boy might be taught to imitate it. The task was begun. Every moment Mr. Whipple could spare,—for he was a poor man, and besides his own family there were some orphan children depending upon him,—he devoted to teaching his little son. It was astonishing what progress was made. Other members of the family also acted as teachers, and as Enoch grew towards manhood, he was not merely on par with his associates, but acknowledged by all to be a superior youth. He could read, could write a nice hand, and for deciphering poor penmanship there was scarcely his equal for miles around. He could also talk. To such perfection was his instruction carried by his energetic father that this deaf man has done business with strangers, bought goods of merchants, etc., and has gone away without leaving a suspicion of his infirmity. As has been seen, the efforts of Mr. Whipple did not end with teaching his own son. He made many successful experiments with other deaf mutes, which led to the founding of The Home School for the deaf at Mystic. After Jonathan Whipple had passed his seventieth year, his faculties remained unimpaired, and he was as indefatigable in his efforts to improve the condition of the afflicted as when his theory was first put in practice. His life was a useful and beautiful one; not a struggle to gain wealth or to win fame; but simply to do good. His declining years were cheered by the knowledge that he had wronged none and bettered many.—Abstract from Life of Jonathan Whipple in “Men of Mark.” 186. Peter Pratt appears to have lived in East Lyme, then a part of New London. 187. To this statement of Peter Pratt is traceable the following from Miss Caulkins: “Suppose at the present day a man like Rogers should enter, etc., accompanying all this with violent contortions, coarse expletives, and foaming at the mouth, would it not require great forbearance,” etc. Nothing was more foreign to the teachings of John Rogers and his followers, or more abhorred by Rogerenes in general—as will be readily attested by those familiar with their principles—than any vulgarity, or even ordinary coarseness, of speech or manner. Miss Caulkins also states (“History of Norwich”) that John Rogers accosted Dr. Lord (over one hundred years before) in a very loud voice, asking him if they wore wigs in heaven, giving her story from “tradition.” This is evidently a mixture of the Peter Pratt court scene, and the contribution of the wig to Mr. Saltonstall. 188. J. Backus, the justice who apprehended and scourged the Lebanon party in 1725, appears to have been grandfather of the historian of the Baptists. 189. At that date the Congregationalists did not hold prayer-meetings, or any evening services. They had, however, a religious “lecture” on Friday afternoons. 190. The original name appears to have been Walterhouse, contracted first to Waterhouse and then to Watrous. 191. Mr. Bolles also said that he could not find a record of the birth or marriage of Joseph Bolles, Jr., on the town records, but we had no difficulty in finding both of the latter upon those records; and by close study of the New London records, we can affirm that no families of New London were better represented by careful entry of family records than were the Rogerenes, especially the Rogers and Bolles families. The following clause in the deed by which John Rogers, 2d, set apart a burying-place for his descendants of itself sufficiently indicates the attitude of the Rogerenes regarding the sanctity and legal form of marriage:— “I do give, grant, convey and confirm unto them my aforesd Sons and to all the Children that are or may be born unto my aforesd Sons or either of them in Wedlock lawfully begotten,” etc. The most careful research and inquiry have failed to discover a single child born out of wedlock in this Society during the hundred years of its distinct existence. Joseph Bolles shows that there were some candid people among their enemies in his day, when he says: “Also the observers of this pretended Sabbath do allow that there is more immorality amongst themselves than there is among us who do not observe it.” 192. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” 193. See “Debate Between Mr. Byles and the Cong. Church.”—People. “We never could conceive nor imagine how you could spend your time. You never visited any of your parishioners, but very seldom—seldom preached a new sermon; but old sermons over and over, etc.” 194. Gurdon, son of Governor Saltonstall. 195. See likeness to similar scene in Governor Saltonstall’s time, 1721 (Part II, Chapter X). 196. Delight Rogers (wife of John Rogers, 3d) was one of the women imprisoned. Her daughter Anna (mother of John R. Bolles) was born very soon after her release. The near-sightedness of this daughter was attributed to the fact that her mother wept so much during her imprisonment. Delight Rogers sat with the rest in the meeting-house; she did not take any work there. Mr. John R. Bolles in “Reminiscences of his Life,” published in a New London paper, said that the venerable Dr. Nathaniel Petting, who knew Delight Rogers, used to say to him: “If there ever was a good woman, your grandmother Lighty was one.” 197. Mr. Byles was at this time thirty years of age. 198. Unfortunately we have merely this in parenthesis concerning the stand taken by Mr. Byles in regard to the Rogerenes. 199. It will be remembered that Mr. Byle’s salary was a liberal one, and his family at this date could not have been large. Transcriber’s Note On p. 102, two references to a James Rogers are followed by superscripted ‘4’ and ‘2’, which would seem to each denote a separate James, presumably by generation. On p. 333, the single footnote (numbered here as 190) had no anchor in the text. It has been arbitrarily added near the top of the page, after the first mention of the three variants of the name ‘Waterhouse’ described in the note. Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original. The following issues should be noted, along with the resolutions.
|
|
