Chapter II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply:—

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

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

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

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

Whereupon, one of the company asked him whether he intended the humane
body, to which he replied that he did intend the humane body.
Whereupon, the person replied again, “Will you say that your humane
body is Christ’s body?” to which he replied, clapping his hand on his
breast, “Yes, I do affirm that this humane body is Christ’s body; for
Christ has purchased it with His precious blood; and I am not my own,
for I am bought with a price.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Friends and Brethren_:—

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

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

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

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

MITTIMUS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Footnote 7:

During the countermove, 1764-1766. See Part II, Chapter XII.

-----

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

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

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

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

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

Four and twenty tailors
Went to kill a snail,
The best man among them
Durst not touch its tail;
It stuck up its horns,
Like a little Kyloe cow;
Run! tailors, run! or it
Will kill you all just now.

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

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