Chapter IV

1691.

The children of James Rogers having petitioned the General Court to divide their father’s estate according to his will,—which was entered on record with their agreement thereto,—certain persons are now appointed to make this division. At the same time, the court “desire John Rogers and Bathsheba Smith doe take the part doth belong to widow Rogers under their care and dispose that a suitable maintainance for her, etc.”

1692.

In July, 1692, there is copied upon the land records a disposition by the widow of James Rogers of certain alleged rights in her husband’s estate, viz.: such rights as would have been hers by the will had there been no codicil thereto. In this document she claims a certain thirteen acres of land on the Great Neck[65] to dispose of as she “sees fit,” also all “moveables” left by her husband, with the exception of £10 willed therefrom to her daughter Elizabeth Beebe. She states that she has already sold one-half of this thirteen acres to her son-in-law, Samuel Beebe. By this singular document, she not only completely ignores the codicil to her husband’s will (already acknowledged by herself, by the other heirs and by the probate court), but her recorded deed of trust, by which, in 1688, she placed her entire life interest in the estate in charge of John and Bathsheba, whose guardianship under the will had also, by agreement of all the children, been confirmed by the General Court.

-----

Footnote 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.

-----

In the month previous to this singular act of the widow, the committee appointed by the court, to divide the estate according to the will, announced their division, adding “when John and Bathsheba shall pay out of the moveable estate[66] to Eliz. Beebe the sum of £10,” “if the widow so order,” the remainder of the estate, real and personal, shall “remain under the care and management of John and Bathsheba during their mother’s life for her honorable maintainance,” also that, after decease of the widow, the real estate and what shall remain of the personal estate be disposed of according to the will of the testator.

-----

Footnote 66:

It afterwards appears that this movable estate included a number
of young slaves, commonly called “servants.”

-----

There was a distinct blunder in the words “if the widow so order” regarding the payment of the £10; since the will distinctly says that the £10 are to be paid by the widow to Elizabeth (“out of the moveables”) “if she sees good, with the advice of my son John,” and the codicil makes no change in regard to this clause. The report of the committee omits the advice of John in this matter, which omission probably seemed not very important to any one at the time. (It will later appear that serious results ensue from this apparently slight and inadvertent court error. See Chapter VII.)

About this time, the widow gives to Elizabeth Beebe (as afterwards appears) the estimate of the £10, in the shape of a little colored girl named Joan, who is classed in the movable estate, and she does this without “the consent of my son John.” In so doing, she not only ignores the will of her husband regarding the advice of John, but also the erroneous wording of the committee’s report that this £10 is to be paid by John and Bathsheba, at her direction. Had she but permitted these guardians and executors to pay the £10, Joan would not have figured in the transaction, it being no part of the intention of John and Bathsheba (as will later appear) that any of their father’s slaves should be sold or given away to remain in lifelong bondage. The two executors and guardians make no complaint to the court of these irregular actions on the part of their mother, or of the wrong wording of the recent report of the committee (nor shall we in any instance find them deviating by a hair’s breadth from the request of their father to make no appeal regarding his estate to earthly judges, although such appeal at this early stage would have saved incalculable trouble hereafter). However, Joan is not given over by them to Elizabeth Beebe.[67]

-----

Footnote 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.

-----

Another part of the erratic document of the widow is that after her death all the “moveables” shall be divided between her son Jonathan and her daughter Elizabeth, again totally ignoring the codicil of the will, which speaks only of John, Bathsheba and Captain James as being concerned in the division of “the moveables” after her death, except that Elizabeth is to have “three cows.”[68]

-----

Footnote 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.

-----

Although the widow has evidently the encouragement and assistance of Samuel Beebe in this proceeding, there is no appearance of any complicity on the part of Jonathan, who exactly conforms to the terms of the will and the executorship of John. Captain James makes no complaint to the court of the fact that Samuel Beebe is already claiming, under this procedure of the widow, a piece of land which is a part of the farm given to himself by the will, for which he is paying rent to his mother by order of the executor. He quietly makes a temporary sale of the thirteen acres to an attorney, of which sale Samuel Beebe complains (New London Records), but evidently in vain.

This is but the beginning of annoyances which certain children of James Rogers are to endure, on account of their determination not to disobey their father’s request in regard to any appeal to “earthly judges.” Little could the testator foresee that his attempt to keep his estate out of the court would be the very means of litigation, through the vagaries of his mentally diseased widow, unchecked by appeal to the court on the one hand, and encouraged by interested parties on the other.

1693.

Before the close of the year 1693, John Rogers is fined £4 for entertaining two Quakers at his house “for a month or more.” He has (by the testimony of his son, see Part I) no fellowship with these men, except as regards his concurrence in the doctrine of non-resistance and some few other particulars. For non-payment of this fine; he is in prison (and remains there well into the next year). This is but the beginning of more stringent measures than have prevailed since the disturbance of the Congregational meeting in 1685, which seems to have won a seven year’s respite from severe persecution.

As yet, the ambitious young minister, Gurdon Saltonstall, appears to have found no good opportunity for attempting to suppress this intractable man. But if John Rogers is to be prevented from continuing to scatter, broadcast, doctrines so subversive to a state church, he should be checked without further delay. In this lapse of severer and more public discipline on the part of the authorities, he has been gathering more converts from the Congregational fold, and has even grown so bold as to come into the very heart of the town to preach his obnoxious doctrines. Prominent citizens, who ought to be above countenancing him, are not only among his hearers, but among his converts.

Samuel Fox, a member of the Congregational church and one of the most prosperous business men of the place, has recently married the widow Bathsheba Smith and adopted her faith. He may be very influential in gaining more such followers, unless deterrent measures are soon taken. How long could the Congregational church be maintained, on its present footing, if such a new birth as this man describes should be required before admission; aye, if any conversion other than turning from, or avoidance of, immoral practices be generally insisted upon? Moreover, this ranting against “hireling ministers” is of itself calculated to weaken and destroy a capable and orderly ministry, to say nothing of baptism by immersion, administering the communion in the evening (after the example of Christ), the nonsensical doctrine of non-resistance, and the rest of this man’s fanatical notions, all of which, strange to say, are attracting favorable attention in intelligent quarters. There is Mr. Thomas Young, for instance, a man of the highest respectability, and allied to some of the best families in the church and the place; it is even understood that John Rogers is to be invited to preach at his house.

But what shall be done with the man? Despite the regular fine of £5, he goes right on with his baptisms and rebaptisms, sometimes on the very day he is released from imprisonment on this account. Fines and imprisonments for other offenses, also, hold him in check only so long as he is in prison. Moreover, the grand jurymen and other officials have become very indulgent regarding his offenses; certain of them appear to connive in leaving him undisturbed in his defiance of ecclesiastical laws. By what means can he be kept in durance long enough to lose his singular and growing popularity; or how can he be put out of sight and hearing altogether?

At least one aspect is encouraging; some of the Rogers young people are inclining towards the Congregational church, in spite of their elders. James, Jr., (son of Captain James), is evidently not in sympathy with the family departure. Let us make much of this young man; he seems a right sensible fellow. Joseph’s sons, with the exception of James (the eldest), appear to be well inclined also. In fact, John Rogers himself is the only one of the original dissenters who is causing any very serious disturbance nowadays. Something of this kind is likely enough to be passing in the mind of Mr. Saltonstall.

In this year, 1693, another difficulty occurs regarding the settlement of the James Rogers estate. The persons appointed to divide the land among the children according to the terms of the will have given Jonathan a farm, “with house thereon,” which was included in the lands given to Joseph by his father in 1666. Joseph (as has been shown) resigned all of this gift of land to his father in 1670, but the latter redeeded the most (or supposedly all) of it back to him in 1683. Joseph appears to have understood that this farm was included in the second deed of gift, and it is probable that his father supposed it to have been thus included, by the terms of the deed. Upon examination, however, the committee have decided that this farm remains a part of the estate of the testator, and, by the terms of the will regarding the division of the residue of land between James and Jonathan, it falls to Jonathan. Naturally, Jonathan has nothing to do but to take what is accorded to him by the decision of those to whom the division has been intrusted, who have divided it to the best of their knowledge and ability. Although Joseph is in much the same position, acquiescence in his case is far less easy. He does not find any fault with the will, but simply claims this farm as his own by the deed of gift of his father, and arbiters are appointed to decide the matter. These men appear to labor under no small difficulty in concluding to which of the two the farm should really belong, but finally decide in favor of Jonathan. Joseph is unwilling to abide by this decision, asserting that some of the evidence on the other side has not been of a fair character.[69] Consequently the case is reopened, with considerable favor shown, on the part of the court, to the representations of Joseph. Jonathan’s part in the case is to present evidence in favor of his right to the property awarded to him; so that he cannot be said to have gone to law in the matter.

-----

Footnote 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.”

-----

(This attempt of Joseph to regain a farm he had supposed to be his own, is the sole “contention regarding boundaries,” which was ascribed by Miss Caulkins to the “children.” It in no way concerns the executor, who had no part whatever in designating the boundaries or dividing the land. Joseph appears to have hesitated at first to make any move in the matter; the opening protest was made in 1692 by his wife, in regard to the deed by which her husband returned to his father (in 1670) the first gift of land.[70])

-----

Footnote 70:

This protest by Joseph’s wife is recorded on the New London land
records, under the deed of gift of 1670.

-----

1694.

The time is now come for the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall to prove what he can do, to stay the progress of this nonconformist movement under the masterly leadership of John Rogers. It is not his intention to confine his efforts to the ineffectual methods heretofore employed, the most public of which have been presentation of leading Rogerenes before the County Court, a procedure that, for some reason (at this date quite obscure), is sure to provoke the dreaded countermove, which has each time accomplished so much for the nonconformists.

The brilliant plan finally matured by Mr. Saltonstall is to capture John Rogers and imprison him at a distance from New London. As in many another contest, the fall of the leader is the death of the cause, or the longer he can be separated from his followers the more will their cause be weakened and the greater the check to his proselyting career, which is just now so alarmingly in the ascendant. There are many dignitaries who share such sentiments with Mr. Saltonstall. A satisfactory plan being matured, it can readily be carried out. Such a plan (which is gradually disclosed in the sequence of events) may be outlined as follows:

For the first part of the program, resort will be had to the old apprehension for servile labor, with arraignment before the County Court. It is presumable, according to precedent, that this will be sufficient to bring out the countermove, which will result in a large fine—with larger bond for good behavior—payment of which being refused, as it undoubtedly will be, the bird will be fully secured in its first cage.

The second part of the plan is, having caught John Rogers in some expression of doctrine or sentiment that will furnish ground for his arrest as a preacher of an unwarrantable sort, to secure his trial before the Superior Court, with adverse verdict and imprisonment in Hartford jail.

According to such a plan, John Rogers will receive a double dose that may prove effectual. The two parts of this plan take place as nearly together as possible, the first standing in abeyance until evidence is secured for the second procedure. This evidence is obtained late in the month of February, 1694, Saturday the 24th.

Upon this date, John Rogers is holding a meeting in town, in the house of Mr. Thomas Young,[71] a gentleman nearly allied, as has been said, to some of the principal members of the Congregational church, and among them to the Christophers family, several of which family (notably Christopher and John) are very intimate friends of Mr. Saltonstall, as well as prominent officials of New London. The large number gathered to listen to this discourse indicates the drawing power of the speaker. Some of his own Society are present, including his son John. It need scarcely be said that the having interested Mr. Thomas Young so seriously is one of the offenses of which John Rogers is now conspicuously guilty.[71] John Christophers, Daniel Wetherell (another New London official and friend of Mr. Saltonstall) and Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall enter this meeting for a sinister purpose.[72]

-----

Footnote 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.

Footnote 72:

For record evidence, see Chapter V.

-----

The subject selected by John Rogers for his discourse on this occasion is one particularly relating to Rogerene dissent; it is the necessity of a new birth and the wonderful changes wrought in body and soul by that divine miracle.[73] That only by such an operation of the Holy Spirit can a man become in truth one with Christ, is the burden of the theme. Not only has the speaker wealth of scriptural foundation for this discourse, but by his own conversion, so sudden and so powerful, he has internal evidence of the mysterious change set forth in the New Testament. No subject could better bring out the fervor and eloquence of the man. He declares that the body of an unregenerate person is a body of Satan, Satan having his abode therein, and that the body of a regenerate person is a body of Christ, Christ dwelling in such a body. (See account of his son,