Chapter VI: )

Footnote 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.

(Motive for any such alleged statement, unless true, being lacking, and a pamphlet being published not long after by John Rogers, giving a detailed account of the whole cause and proceeding, by which the exorbitant sum of £600 recovery for libel, with costs of court, was levied upon him, it is presumable that enmity and court influence were at the bottom of this suit, if not clearly on the surface. Ecclesiastical power was dominant at this time in all the courts. Ever back of Mr. Saltonstall stood this power, as intent as himself upon the overthrow of this daring nonconformist. Could a copy of the pamphlet by John Rogers,[86] giving details of that remarkable suit, be found, much light would doubtless be cast upon this period in the history of the Rogerenes.)

Footnote 86:

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

The death of Elizabeth, widow of James, has recently occurred.[87]

Footnote 87:

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

John Rogers has changed his home from the Great Neck to Mamacock farm, North Parish. His sister Bathsheba has also removed to the North Parish, to a place called Fox’s Mills, from the mills owned and carried on by her husband, Samuel Fox.