Chapter XI: Years of Truce

For some years after the death of John Rogers, no serious interference with the customs of the Rogerenes is recorded. The countermoves directly preceding that death should, by all precedents, be sufficient to secure them from molestation for a considerable time to come.

September, 1724, occurs the sudden death of Governor Saltonstall, by apoplexy. His family continue to reside in New London and to form an important part of the leading membership of the Congregational church.

Under the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall the half-way covenant was in full force,[142] and under his administration as governor this policy was applied to the colony at large.

Footnote 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._

For forty years after the death of Governor Saltonstall, nothing regarding the Rogerenes appears on the records of either of the three courts. Yet there is abundant evidence that these people are steadfastly continuing in the faith and practices of their sect, holding their own meetings, in New London, Groton and elsewhere, preaching their purely scriptural doctrines, and publishing books in defense of their principles. Although not presented before the County Court in this period, they are (as shown by the writings of John Rogers, 2d, and John Bolles) frequently disturbed by the town magistrates, who deal with them “at their own discretion.” That entrance into the meeting-house was a last resort is shown by its extreme infrequency as compared with the more or less constant and severe aggravations to which they are subjected. The only evidence of virulent measures in this period is the pitiless scourging inflicted by Norwich authorities (1725) upon the Sunday party on their way to Lebanon. (See Part I., Chapter I.) The officers and others concerned in this proceeding appear to have been members of the Norwich church, from which, as has been seen, were wont to issue pursuers of the Rogerenes.[143]

Footnote 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.

The following from the “Hempstead Diary” shows an imprisonment of one or more Rogerenes at this period, and, in consequence, a Rogerene attendance in Congregational church. The speaking appears to have been so timid as not to disturb the services.

1725. _Sunday, Oct. 31._—Walter and John Waterus spake aloud att
ye Same Instant and said you Blaspheme the name of Christ or to
that effect. Jno. Rogers and Bolles and his wife sd Nothing till
meeting was over and yn complained much of the french barber
striking over one of their crew at the prison and brot the stick
wch he sd he Struck him with.

The offenses for which the Rogerenes are most liable to magisterial punishment at this time appear to be travelling upon Sunday, when they have occasion to attend a distant meeting, and performing sufficient observable labor upon that day to assure their opponents that they continue to deny its sanctity; although they take a suitable portion of it for religious services. From them are regularly collected fines for not training. These fines being demanded by Cæsar (the purely civil government) are probably paid without protest.[144] The church rates they never pay, no matter how many fold more than the amount due is collected by execution on their property, and still, as heretofore, they never appeal to the court on account of the surplus retained.

Footnote 144:

No proof of refusal to pay these fines appears until a much later
date.

A considerable number of Rogerenes are located in the northeastern part of Groton, among whom John Waterhouse and John Culver are leaders. This is a sparsely populated district, where the nonconformists are less exposed to such molestation and extortions as assail those of New London. These Groton Rogerenes have Baptists for their nearest neighbors, a sect agreeing with them in certain particulars, but equally with the ruling order holding to the observance of a “holy Sabbath.” It is certain that the Groton Rogerenes have, sooner or later, some grievance against these Baptists, evidently in connection with the question of Sunday sanctity.

In 1728, John Bolles issues his “Application to the General Court of Connecticut,” “in all the honor and submissive obedience that God requires me to show to you,”—in which he states that he discovers in the “Confession of Faith” which this court has established, “principles that seem not to be proven by the Scriptures there quoted,” and that he has drawn up some objections thereto which he desires to be considered and “reply to be returned,” also that he has “taken a journey for no other end but to deliver these objections to one of the elders in each county in the colony.” As he afterwards expresses it, “they disregarded my request.” In this pamphlet he mentions various instances of cruel persecution to which he and his friends have been subjected, and ends with these words:—

But we, on our parts, have had the witness of a good conscience
towards God in all our sufferings and loss of all these things,
and do make it our care to live inoffensively towards all men,
except in the case of Daniel, Chap. 6, Verse 5.[145] And whether
this be not oppressing and afflicting them that have no power to
help themselves for conscience’s sake,[146] let God be judge. Pray
peruse what is above written, and let it have a due sense upon
your minds; and so act and do in all the particulars above
mentioned, as you may have confidence and boldness to hold up your
heads before the great and terrible and righteous judge of all the
earth, when He shall come with his mighty angels in flaming fire,
taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 146:

Viz.: by their principles of non-resistance.

That the religious standard of some of the principal members of the Congregational church has not advanced since the time of Governor Saltonstall is indicated by the following, from the “Hempstead Diary”:—

1734. _Sunday, Sept. 29._ The late Gov. Saltonstall’s Pew stove
down the Door and 2 Pannels, it seems to be the effects of a
Contention between the two Brothers wives which of ye females
shall have the upper hand.[147]

Footnote 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 exaplary in his Living orderly and good in every
Relation.

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.

It is not surprising that an aristocracy so autocratic as to contend with near relatives for supremacy of this kind should be bitterly antagonistic to the Rogerenes, who not only shun worldly position for themselves but refuse to be subject to its rule in all matters pertaining to the Christian religion. Youth of the Congregational church, who are to grow up under influences of the above description, are destined, thirty years from this date, to be church members themselves and to take part with their elders, as advocates of a “holy Sabbath,” in a movement against the Rogerenes which is to result in the great countermove of 1764-66, and the retaliatory measures adopted in that contest.

We find in the “Hempstead Diary”:—“July 17, 1743, Hannah Plumb,[148] a young woman, was baptized in ye river at ye town beach by Samuel son of John Rogers.” This not only shows Samuel Rogers (son of John, 2d) to be a leading Rogerene, but is one of the proofs that some of the Plumb family, the elder members of which are prominent in the town and Congregational church, are of Rogerene persuasion; also that the Rogerenes have got beyond the Mill Cove for baptisms.

Footnote 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.

About 1735, John Culver and wife, with their sons and families, together with other Rogerenes of Groton, emigrated to New Jersey, where they founded a Rogerene settlement. (The cause of this removal is unknown. The theory that it was to escape persecution is weakened, not only by proof that the Culvers had proven themselves of heroic mould in this struggle, but by the fact that there was a cessation of virulent persecution at this time.) In the course of a few years, they are found, with quite a following, at Waretown[149] (in the southern part of what is now Ocean County), holding their meetings in a schoolhouse. A man by the name of Weair, the founder of Waretown, is one of their Society; an enterprising business man, who is described as a most worthy Christian.[150]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 150:

Upon his gravestone is inscribed:—“In memory of Abraham Weair.
Died March 24, 1768, aged 85 years. Whose innocent life adorned
true light.”

The location of this little Rogerene community is about one hundred and forty miles from Ephrata, Pa., where is a Society of Dunkers, among whom are certain brethren who dwell apart from the secular portion of the community, in a cloister. This Society observe the seventh day as a Sabbath, and hold closely to New Testament teaching and example, not discarding healing by faith and prayer and the anointing with oil. The brethren of the cloister appear to believe in direct enlightenment being accorded to such as lead devout lives. They have acquired the name and fame of “holy men.” John Culver has visited these brethren of the cloister, and a mutual friendship and interest have resulted.

In 1744, a number of these Ephrata brethren, being on a pilgrimage in the vicinity of the New Jersey Rogerenes, pay them a visit. The reputation of these “holy men,” in regard to healing by prayer, and also the fidelity of the Rogerenes to this scriptural mode, is shown by the fact, recorded by the Pilgrims, that the New Jersey Rogerenes brought their sick to them, in the hope that they might be restored to health.[151]

Footnote 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.

The Culvers urge the Pilgrims to visit the Rogerenes of New London, and with such effect that the brethren embark for Connecticut. They land at Blackpoint, where they are received by a Rogerene of that vicinity, who later escorts them to Bolles Hill, where they make their headquarters at the house of John Bolles. They speak, in their journal, of the Rogerenes as leading “a quiet life apart,” in the country, and state that they had with them a “most peaceful visit.” From the country they are escorted into the town, where they are entertained at the house of Ebenezer Bolles (son of John), whom they describe in their journal as “a blessed virtuous man.” They advise him not to marry, not knowing that he is engaged to Mary, the seventeen-year-old daughter of John Rogers, 2d, and has made his house ready for the bride who is very shortly to occupy it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the town, by description of the tourists, is in a state of agitation and excitement, on account of rumors of war with Spain and the religious differences and public disputes occasioned by the presence and preaching of the New Light evangelists, the citizens vie with the Rogerenes in kindly and interested attentions to the strangers, who speak highly of the hospitality of the people and describe New London as “a fruitful garden of God.” When the day for their departure arrives, the Rogerenes provide passage for them to New York, to which “gifts” of some kind are added, by reason of which the Pilgrims state that they took away with them more than they brought. There is mention of these strangers in the “Hempstead Diary,” under date of October 10, 1744, where they are described as men with beards eight or nine inches long, without hats and dressed in white. By their own description, a crowd followed them in New London wherever they went.

No mention is made by the Pilgrims of any unpleasantness between the Rogerenes and their neighbors, unless the “quiet life apart” of the former can be thus construed. That the Rogerenes sympathize with the New Lights to a considerable degree is more than probable; yet they seem to go their own way, undisturbed and unexcited by the surrounding ferment.[152]

Footnote 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.

New ecclesiastical laws have recently been enacted, largely on account of the advent of the New Lights, and old laws are to be more strictly enforced. The rulers are tightening the reins, and the Rogerenes with other nonconformists are likely to receive a cut of the lash. In 1745, Joshua Hempstead writes in his Diary:—

_Sunday, June 16._—John Rogers and Bolles and Waterus and Adrw
Daviss and about 20 more of their Gang, came Down into Town with a
cart and oxen and were taken up by the officers and Committed to
Prison, also 4 Women of their Company Came to ye Meetinghouse and
began to preach and were taken away to Prison also.

No clew is given to the cause of this move. A phalanx of Rogerenes passing, on Sunday, slowly along the principal street of the town in a cart drawn by oxen, each one of these non-combatants calmly and cheerfully prepared to pay for their spectacular move by seizure, imprisonment and fines, is fully as comical as it is tragic. Though some of the spectators are in a rage, others must be overcome with laughter, while sympathizers too politic to laugh outright smile in their sleeves. The after-appearance, at or in the neighborhood of the meeting-house, of four Rogerene women, fluent in Gospel “testimony” regarding the unchristian proceedings of the “authority,” is a fitting climax to this non-resistant menace.

No wonder that for nine years to come the entries in the “Hempstead Diary” will contain no hint of any collision with the Rogerenes.

The generally tolerant spirit towards the Rogerenes during the last twenty years is largely to be attributed to the conciliatory character of the Rev. Mr. Adams, who, although he may not have felt himself in a position to oppose the autocratic policy of Governor Saltonstall, appears never to have instigated any attack upon the nonconformists or taken an observable part in any such move. Nor, on the other hand, do we find indication of any hard feeling towards this minister on the part of the Rogerenes.

Who, it may be asked, are the Rogerenes of this period? Foremost among the leaders on the New London side are John Rogers, 2d, and John Bolles. There is a considerable following of families and individuals in the town and vicinity, in no way allied to these by relationship. The region about Mamacock and districts farther north have, within the century, become largely occupied by families from Rhode Island, who, being of Quaker and Baptist sympathies, are well fitted for affiliation with the Rogerenes. It is not unlikely that many of them have been attracted hither by that sect. Among these are descendants of some who, having been persecuted by the ruling church of Massachusetts, had retreated to Rhode Island for security. Such would be nothing loath to aid in the bold stand so well instituted in Connecticut. There are Rogerenes in Groton, Montville, Colchester, Lebanon and Saybrook.[153] How many more converts are at this date “scattered throughout New England” none could tell so well as John Bolles, who has travelled extensively over the country selling Rogerene books and expounding Rogerene doctrines. But the solid nucleus of this Society is in the neighborhood of Mamacock and just north of there, where the John Rogers and John Bolles families and their neighboring followers are as a phalanx. They are, in the main, a people of broad acres and ample means, industrious and energetic; their young women are sought in marriage by promising youth of other denominations, and their young men, evidently with full parental consent, improve opportunities to take wives from some of the best families in New London of wholly different persuasions from their own. James, son of John Rogers, 2d, a young Rogerene of great business ability, marries a daughter of Mr. Joseph Harris, and permits his wife to have her child baptized in the Congregational church,[154] of which she is a member. Evidently, the New London Rogerenes agree with St. Paul in this regard. 1 Cor. vii, 14. About 1740, Capt. Benjamin Greene, of Rhode Island—a younger brother of Gov. William Greene—established a home farm near Mamacock, at the point called “Scotch Cap.” He is not only a shipmaster but the owner of several vessels and their cargoes. His brother, the governor, is a frequent visitor at Scotch Cap. The wife of Captain Greene is of the Angell family of Rhode Island. Delight, daughter of Capt. Benjamin Greene, marries John, son of John Rogers, 2d. The Greenes are of both Quaker and Baptist sympathies. Samuel Rogers, son of John, 2d, marries a daughter of Stephen Gardner, from Rhode Island, whose family are of Quaker origin. The other marriageable son of this date weds a daughter of Mr. John Savol (or Saville), a prominent member of the Congregational church, afterwards of Norwich. One daughter of John Rogers, 2d, marries a son of John Bolles; another marries a young man of Groton whose father is an enterprising business man from Rhode Island; the other four daughters marry sons of members of the Congregational church (New London and elsewhere), of high standing and ample means.

Footnote 153:

Since John Rogers resided as a pastor on the Great Neck from 1675
to 1699 he had undoubtedly a following of that locality.

Footnote 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.

The sons of John Bolles have not all taken wives from among the Rogerenes, but are less allied to those of Congregational persuasion; outside of their own sect they have most favored Baptist women. The second wife of John Rogers, 2d, appears not to have been a Rogerene before marriage, and the same may be said of the second wife of John Bolles. If such facts are true of the chief leaders and their children, we may easily judge of the alliances of their followers with persons of other denominations, in this comparatively quiet interval.

The above particulars are important as showing the social status of the leading New London Rogerenes in the middle of the eighteenth century, and proving that, although holding strictly to their own opinions and customs, they are not only accounted honorable and esteemed members of the community, but are so liberally inclined as to be in a large degree connected with liberal members of other sects. John Rogers, 2d, has said: “I abhor the abusing of any sect.”—_Answer to Peter Pratt._ It appears likely that he also abhors the isolation of any sect, believing men and women can differ on certain religious points, and yet be friends and even partners for life.

This ready association of the New London Rogerenes with friendly people of other denominations, is but one of many evidences that the chief contention of these people has not been regarding minor matters of church government and customs, nor even so much in regard to baptism and hireling ministers; but that the great struggle, from first to last, has been for religious liberty; in asserting which liberty they must oppose those who institute, enforce or uphold laws inimical to free expression of religious belief, or individual liberty in the form of worship. Having the high ground of apostolic doctrines and usages upon which to found a strong opposition to ecclesiastical tyranny, they have fought the good fight upon that sacred foundation.

The indications are strong that by the middle of the eighteenth century there is not so much friction between the Rogerenes and the authorities in regard to the gathering of rates for the Congregational ministry, but that the old, exorbitant methods of seizure have declined to less grievous proportions. Nor does there appear to be serious interference with Sunday labor or travelling, which argues that the Rogerenes are not driven, by close watch and frequent arrests, to any extraordinary demonstrations of their disapproval of governmental meddling in matters of conscience. It appears to be the policy at this period to let them alone on these sensitive points, in consequence of which toleration they do not consider it necessary to make their differences of belief so distinctly prominent. Evidently, a large measure of the freedom for which this sect has contended is already accorded; certain ecclesiastical laws, not yet erased from the statute book, are becoming, in the neighborhood of the Rogerenes at least, of the dead letter order, which is the case with many other laws still upon that book.

In June, 1753, occurs the death of John Rogers, 2d, in his eightieth year. He has made a long and heroic stand, since at the age of seventeen years he joined his father in this contest. To him is largely due the size and strength of a sect that has called for the bravest of the brave—and found them.

Fifteen children gather at Mamacock, to follow the remains of this honored and beloved father to the grave, eight sons and seven daughters, of the average age of thirty-four years, the eldest (son) being fifty-two and the youngest (son) fourteen years of age. Besides these, with their families, and the widow in her prime, is the large gathering of Bolleses and other friends and followers in the locality, also those of Groton and doubtless many from other places.

They lay the form of this patriarch beside his father, his wife Bathsheba and the children gone before, in the ground he has set apart, in the southeast corner of his farm, as a perpetual burial place for his descendants, close by the beautiful river that washes Mamacock. They mark his grave, like the others in this new ground, by two rough stones, from nature’s wealth of granite in this locality, whose only tracery shall be the lichen’s mossy green or tender mould.[155]

Footnote 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).

John Rogers, 2d, was a man of remarkable thrift and enterprise as well as of high moral and religious character.[156] His inventory is the largest of his time in New London and vicinity, and double that of many accounted rich, consisting mainly of a number of valuable farms on both sides of the Norwich road, including the enlarged Mamacock farm, the central part of which (Mamacock proper), his home farm, is shown by the inventory to be under a high state of cultivation and richly stocked with horses, cattle and sheep. His children had received liberal gifts from him in his lifetime.

Footnote 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.

Four of the eight sons of John Rogers, 2d, are now in the prime of life, and not only landed proprietors but men of excellent business ability. John, the youngest of the four, now in his thirtieth year, is appointed administrator of his father’s estate and guardian of his two minor brothers. James, the eldest, is a very enterprising business man. That his coopering establishment is a large plant is shown by the fact that he is, immediately after the death of his father, the richest man in New London, his estate being nearly equal to that left by his father.[157] The preamble of his will proved in 1754, shows him to have been a Christian of no ordinary stamp. Thus soon, after the death of John Rogers, 2d, this worthy and capable son, who must have been a man of large influence in the Society, is removed. For some time previous to his death, he occupied, as a home farm, the southern third of the enlarged Mamacock[158]—which fell to him later by his father’s will—upon which was a “mansion house” said to have been built of materials brought from Europe. His brother Samuel has inherited the northern third of the enlarged Mamacock, upon which he resided for some time previous to the death of his father. His brother John has inherited the central part, or Mamacock proper, which his father reserved for his own use.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

All the sons of John Rogers have been well educated; John has marked literary talent; his brother Alexander appears to be a schoolmaster of uncommon ability, although farmer and shoemaker as well.[159]

Footnote 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.

The eight sons of John Bolles are among the wealthiest and most enterprising citizens of New London; several own valuable lands in the very heart of the town, as well as farms outside; they are business men as well as farmers. Ebenezer Bolles is one of the richest merchants in New London. The moral character of these sons of John Rogers and John Bolles is without reproach. They are professing Christians of the most evangelical stamp. Their sisters are wives of thrifty and upright men.

These people and their adherents are not only a strong business element in this community, but they are a strong moral and religious element. If the present policy of non-enforcement in regard to this sect of the ecclesiastical laws which they are bound to resist should be continued, there is every reason to expect that in another generation they will mingle with the rest of the community in so friendly a manner as to be willing to compromise regarding such minor differences as the observance or non-observance of days.

In 1754, John Bolles issued in pamphlet form “A Message to the General Court in Boston,” in behalf of the principles of religious liberty. In a volume in which this pamphlet was republished are two other publications of this author, one of which (apparently written about this time) is the tract entitled “True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to no Flesh.” In this tract, among accounts of persecution inflicted on the Rogerenes, is the following (also noted in Part I.):—

“To my knowledge was taken from a man, only for the cost of a
justice’s court and court charge for whipping him for breach of
Sabbath (so called) a mare worth a hundred pounds, and nothing
returned; and this is known by us yet living, to have been the
general practice in Connecticut.”

The “by us yet living” and “to have been” indicate that it was at a time considerably previous to this writing that such great cruelty and extortions were in vogue. Yet it also shows how easily, with no such publicity as would be incurred by presentation before the County Court, great persecutions could be carried on by town magistracy, a possibility always existing under the ecclesiastical laws relative to Sunday observances.

John Bolles took his “Message to the General Court” to Boston for presentation, in 1754, making the journey of two hundred miles on horseback, in his seventy-seventh year. (See Part I., Chap. VII.)

In the previous year—October, 1753—close following the death of John Rogers, 2d, had occurred the death of Rev. Eliphalet Adams, after a pastorate of over forty years in New London. It has been seen that since the death of Governor Saltonstall no virulent persecution of the Rogerenes has occurred, and that the character and policy of Mr. Adams have been favorable to compromise and conciliation. But very soon after the death of Mr. Adams there appear signs of a grievance on the part of the Rogerenes of a character to call forth one of their old-time warnings. Proof of this appears in the “Hempstead Diary”:—

_March 17, 1754._ John Waterhouse of Groton and John Bolles and
his sons and a company of Rogerenes came to meeting late in the
forenoon service, and tarried and held their meeting after our
meeting was over, and left off without any disorder before our
afternoon meeting began.

It is thirty-three years since Mr. Hempstead has had occasion to note such a noon meeting on the part of the Rogerenes. By what official move this warning has been induced does not appear. Evidently no violence was offered the Rogerenes. This meeting will be a sufficient check for some time upon whatever attempts are on foot to disturb them.

Two years later, J. Hempstead writes in his Diary: “1756, May 30. John Waterhouse and a company came to our meeting.”

There is evidently some call for another warning. The Congregational pulpit is, at this date, filled with temporary supply.

In this evident crisis, it is probable that none await the action of the Congregational church in their choice of a minister with more interest than do the Rogerenes. Upon the views and temper of Mr. Adam’s successor will largely depend the continuance or discontinuance of the generally pacific attitude on both sides, which has continued for so many years. In the Congregational church membership are town officials as well as those in still more influential positions.