CHAPTER III.
As round and round it takes its flight,
That lofty dweller of the skies,
And never on the earth doth light,
The fabled bird of Paradise;
So would we soar on pinions bright,
And ever keep the sun in sight,
That sun of truth, whose golden rays
Are as the “light of seven days.”
Falsehood is the bane of the world. It links men with him who was a liar from the beginning. We would bruise a lie as we would a serpent under our feet. Not so much to defend persons as to vindicate justice do we write.
It has been said that toleration is the only real test of civilization. But toleration is not the word; all men are entitled to equal religious freedom, and any infringement thereof is an infringement of a God-given right.
Who was the most calumniated person the world has ever seen,—stigmatized as a blasphemer, as a gluttonous man, as beside himself, as one that hath a devil? From his mouth we hear the words: “Blessed are ye when men shall persecute and revile you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely.”
John Rogers and his disciples, who, in the face of so much obloquy, nurtured the tree of liberty with tears, with sacrifices and with blood, would seem to be entitled to this blessing.
Is it not strange, as we have before said, that Mr. McEwen should say, “To pay taxes of any kind grieved their souls”?
Ought a public teacher to state that which a little research on his part would have shown him to be false?
Miss Caulkins sets this matter in its true light, as already shown, and it will be further elucidated by the words of John Rogers, 2d, here given:—
Forasmuch as we acknowledge the worldly government to be set up of God, we have always paid all public demands for the upholding of the same, as Town Rates and County Rates and all other demands, excepting such as are for the upholding of hireling ministers and false teachers, which God called us to testify against.
Now when the worldly rulers take upon themselves to make laws relating to God’s worship, and thereby do force and command men’s consciences, and so turn their swords against God’s children, they then act beyond their commission and jurisdiction.
Thus it is by misrepresentations without number that the name and fame of these moral heroes have been tarnished.
We will again refer to the false statements in Dr. Trumbull’s History, nearly all of which aspersions are taken from that volume of falsehoods written by Peter Pratt after Roger’s death, from which we shall presently make quotations that, we doubt not, will convince the intelligent reader that this author was unscrupulous to a degree utterly incomprehensible, unless by supposition of a natural tendency to falsehood.
Yet it is from this book of Pratt’s that historians have drawn nearly all their statements regarding the Rogerenes.
Trumbull (quoting from Pratt) says: “John Rogers was divorced from his wife for certain immoralities.”
The General Court divorced him from his wife without assigning any cause whatever, of which act Rogers always greatly complained. It was left for his enemies to circulate the above scandal, with the intent to blacken his character and thus weaken Rogerene influence. John Rogers, 2d, testifies that his mother left her husband solely on account of his religion. He says (“Ans. to Peter Pratt”):—
I shall give the reader a true account concerning the matter of the first difference between John Rogers and his wife, as I received it from their own mouths, they never differing in any material point as to the account they gave about it.
Although I did faithfully, and in the fear of God, labor with her in her lifetime, by persuading her to forsake her adulterous life and unlawful companions; yet, since her death, should have been glad to have heard no more about it, had not Peter Pratt, like a bad bird, befouled his own nest by raking in the graves of the dead and by publishing such notorious lies against them “whom the clods of the valley forbid to answer for themselves;”[[8]] for which cause I am compelled to give a true account concerning those things, which is as follows:—
John Rogers and his wife were both brought up in the New England way of worship, never being acquainted with any other sect; and although they were zealous of the form which they had been brought up in, yet were wholly ignorant as to the work of regeneration, until, by a sore affliction which John Rogers met with, it pleased God to lay before his consideration the vanity of all earthly things and the necessity of making his peace with God and getting an interest in Jesus Christ, which he now applies himself to seek for, by earnest prayer to God in secret and according to Christ’s words, Matt. vii, 7, 8, “Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth,” etc.
And he coming to witness the truth of these 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, as did appear by his warning all people he met with to make their peace with God, declaring what God had done for his soul.
Now his wife, observing the great change which was wrought in her husband, as appeared by his fervent prayers, continually searching the scriptures, and daily discoursing about the things of God to all persons he met with, and particularly to her, persuading her to forsake her vain conversation and make her peace with God, did greatly stir her up to seek to God by earnest prayer, that he would work the same work of grace in her soul, as she saw and believed to be wrought in her husband.
After some time, upon their diligent searching the holy scriptures, they began to doubt of some of the principles which they had traditionally been brought up in; and particularly that of sprinkling infants which they had been taught to call Baptism; but now they find it to be only an invention of men; and neither command nor example in Scripture for it. Upon which, they bore a public testimony against it, which soon caused a great uproar in the country.
And their relations, together with their neighbors, and indeed the world in general who had any opportunity, were all united in persuading them that it was a spirit of error by which they were deluded.
But the main instrument which Satan at length made use of to deceive John Roger’s wife, was her own natural mother, who, by giving her daughter an account of her own conversion, as she called it, and telling her daughter there was no such great change in the work of conversion as they had met with; but that it was the Devil had transformed himself into an angel of light, at length fully persuaded her daughter to believe that it was even so.
Whereupon, she soon publicly recanted and renounced that Spirit which she had been led by, and declared it to be the spirit of the Devil, and then vehemently persuaded her husband to do the like, telling him, with bitter tears, that unless he would renounce that spirit she dare not live with him. But he constantly telling her that he knew it to be the Spirit of God and that to deny it would be to deny God; which he dare not do.
Whereupon she left her husband, taking her two children with her, and with the help of her relations went to her father’s house, about eighteen miles from her husband’s habitation.
And I do solemnly declare, in the presence of God, that this is a true relation of their first separation, as I received it from their own mouths, as also by the testimony of two of their next neighbors is fully proved. (See Chapter IV, 1st Part.)
So doubtful was she herself of the lawfulness of her subsequent marriage with the father of Peter Pratt, that she never signed her name Elizabeth Pratt to any legal document; but “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” many instances of which are on record.
This charge made against John Rogers, in Dr. Trumbull’s History, is further shown to be false by the record of the Court at Hartford, May 25, 1675; the grand jury returning that they “find not the bill.” Yet, in the face of this patent fact, has this false charge been perpetuated by ecclesiastical historians and their followers. We note, however, one shining exception, contained in the Saulisbury “Family Histories,” under the Matthew Griswold line, treating of the divorce of his daughter Elizabeth, which is here given:—
In 1674, her first husband departed from the established orthodoxy of the New England churches, by embracing the doctrines of the Seventh Day Baptists; and, having adopted later “certain peculiar notions of his own,” though still essentially orthodox as respects the fundamental faith of his time, became the founder of a new sect, named after him Rogerenes, Rogerene Quakers, or Rogerene Baptists. Maintaining “obedience to the civil government,” he denounced as unscriptural all interference of the civil power in the worship of God.
It seemed proper to give these particulars with regard to Rogers, because they were made the ground[[9]] of a petition by his wife for divorce, in May, 1675, which was granted by the “General Court,” in October of the next year, and was followed in 1677 by another, also granted, for the custody of her children, her late husband being so “hettridox in his opinions and practice.”
The whole reminds us of other instances, more conspicuous in history, of the narrowness manifested by fathers of New England towards any deviations from the established belief, and of their distrust of individual conscience as a sufficient rule of religious life, without the interference of civil authority. There is no reason to believe that the heterodoxy “in practice” referred to in the wife’s last petition to the Court, was anything else than a nonconformity akin to that for the sake of which the shores of their “dear old England” had been left behind forever by the very men who forgot to tolerate it themselves, in their new Western homes. Of course, like all persecuted, especially religious, parties, the Rogerenes courted, gloried in, and profited by, distresses.
In Trumbull’s History, we also find the scandalous statement, to which we have previously referred: “They would come on the Lord’s day into the most public assemblies nearly or quite naked.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no evidence on record, or tradition, concerning any such act. Among the hundreds of prosecutions against the Rogerenes, no such thing is alluded to on the records, etc. Miss Caulkins in her History makes no reference to this stigma. Yet Mr. McEwen, in his Half-Century Sermon, says: “Dr. Trumbull and perhaps some others give us some historical items of the Rogerenes.”
By thus referring to Dr. Trumbull’s History, he virtually, we would hope not intentionally, indorses all the errors concerning this sect, which are contained in that work.
But, like the entablature of a column, crowning all the rest, are the words of Rev. Mr. Saltonstall, credited to same ‘History,’ and which we have before quoted:—
There never was, for this twenty years that I have resided in this government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this people.
Why were the Rogerenes fined for observing the seventh day instead of the first day of the week, consistently with their profession? Why fined for absenting themselves from the meetings of the Congregational church? Why forbidden to hold meetings of their own? Why was John Rogers fined for every one he baptized by immersion, and for entertaining Quakers, as we have seen? And why did the Hartford jailer say to him: “I will make you comply with their worship if the Authority cannot”?
Miss Caulkins, though writing in partial defence of the Church, speaks truthfully on this subject when she says:—
It was certainly a great error in the early planters of New England to endeavor to produce uniformity in doctrine by the strong arm of physical force. Was ever religious dissent subdued either by petty annoyance or actual cruelty? Is it possible to make a true convert by persecution? The principle of toleration was, however, then less clearly understood.
This self-justification of Mr. Saltonstall would seem to vie for insincerity with the language used by papists, as they handed over heretics to the civil power, asking that they be treated with mercy and that not a drop of blood be shed, meaning that they be burned.
It is not unlike what that most cruel persecutor, Philip II of Spain, husband of Bloody Mary, said of himself: “that he had always from the beginning of his government followed the path of clemency, according to his natural disposition, so well known to the world;” or what Virgilius wrote of the merciless Duke of Alva, while the latter was carrying out some of the most diabolical devices of the Inquisition, under the orders of this same king Philip: “All,” said Virgilius, “venerate the prudence and gentleness of the Duke of Alva.”
Mr. Saltonstall’s words also run in a groove with those of Peter Pratt, the great traducer. “In short,” says Pratt, “he never suffered the loss of one hair of his head by the Authority for any article of his religion, nor for the exercise of it.”
To which John Rogers, 2d, replies:—
In answer to this last extravagant assertion, which the whole neighborhood knows to be false, I shall only mention the causes of some few of his sufferings, which I am sure that both the records and neighborhood will witness the truth of.
In the first place, he lost his wife and children on the account of his religion, as has been fully proved.
The next long persecution, which both himself and all his Society suffered for many years, was for refusing to come to Presbyterian meetings; upon which account, their estates were extremely destroyed and their bodies often imprisoned.
Also the multitude of fines and imprisonments which he suffered on the account of baptizing such as desired to be baptized after the example of Christ, by burying in the water. All which fines and imprisonments were executed in the most rigorous manner. Sometimes the officers, taking him in the dead of winter, as he came wet out of the water, committed him to prison without a spark of fire, with many other cruel acts, which for brevity I must omit.
Moreover, the many hundreds of pounds which the collectors have taken from him for the maintainance of the Presbyterian ministers, which suffering he endured to the day of his death and which his Society still suffers.
But, forasmuch as his sufferings continued more than forty years, and were so numerous that I doubt not but to give a particular account of them would fill a larger volume than was ever printed in New England, I must desist.
But the same spirit of persecution under which he suffered, is yet living among us; as is evidenced by what here follows:—
The last fifth month called July, in the year 1725, we were going to our meeting, being eight of us in number, it being the first day of the week, the day which we usually meet on as well as the rest of our neighbors; and as we were in our way, we were taken upon the king’s highway, by order of Joseph Backus, called a justice of the peace, and the next day by his order cruelly whipped, with an unmerciful instrument, by which our bodies were exceedingly wounded and maimed; and the next first day following, as we were returning home from our meeting, we were again, three of us, taken upon the king’s highway, by order of John Woodward and Ebenezer West of Lebanon, called justices of the peace, and the next day by them sentenced to be whipped, and were accordingly carried to the place of execution and stripped in order to receive the sentence; but there happened to be present some tender-spirited people, who, seeing the wounds in our bodies we had received the week before, paid the fines and so prevented the punishment.
And also the same John Woodward, soon after this, committed two of our brethren to prison, viz., Richard Man and Elisha Man, for not attending the Presbyterian meeting, although they declared it to be contrary to their consciences to do so. Neither have their persecutors allowed them one meal of victuals, nor so much as straw to lie on, all the time of their imprisonment; although they are well known to be very poor men.
But, to return to the matter I was upon, which was to prove Peter Pratt’s assertion false, in saying John Rogers never suffered the loss of one hair of his head by the Authority for any article of his religion, nor for the exercise of it. And had not Peter Pratt been bereft as well of reason as conscience, he would not have presumed to have asserted such a thing, which the generality of the neighborhood knows to be false.
In further proof of the falsity of Mr. Saltonstall’s assertions, and as showing also the spirit of those times, we quote the following from Dr. Trumbull’s History:—
But though the churches were multiplying and generally enjoying peace, yet sectaries were creeping in and began to make their appearance in the Colony. Episcopacy made some advances, and in several instances there was a separation from the Standing Churches. The Rogerenes and a few Baptists made their appearance among the inhabitants; meetings were held in private houses, and laymen undertook to administer the sacraments. This occasioned the following act of the General Assembly, at their sessions in May, 1723.[[10]]
“Be it enacted, &c., That whatsoever persons shall presume on the Lord’s Day to neglect the public worship of God in some lawful congregation, and form themselves into separate companies in private houses, being convicted thereof before any assistant or Justice of the Peace, shall each of them on every such offense, forfeit the sum of twenty shillings, and that whatsoever person (not being lawfully allowed minister of the Standing Order) shall presume to profane the holy sacraments by administering them to any person or persons whatsoever, and being thereof convicted before the County Court, in such County where such offense shall be committed, shall incur the penalty of £10 for every such offense and suffer corporal punishment, by whipping not exceeding thirty stripes for each offense.”
Previous to this act, the penalty for baptizing by immersion was £5, which penalty was often inflicted upon John Rogers, as we have seen.
In the Boston plantation, for merely speaking against sprinkling of infants the like penalty was incurred. Thus thick was the cloud of bigotry and ignorance which had settled down on the people at that day and which John Rogers, and his followers by the light of truth labored to disperse, deserving honor instead of the reproaches which they have suffered from prejudiced and careless historians and narrow-minded ecclesiastics.
Still, in the face of facts like these, “all of which he saw and a large part of which he was,” the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall asserts “that no man hath suffered on account of his religious opinions,” etc.
Dr. Trumbull says, “Mr. Saltonstall was a great man.”
“They helped every one his neighbor; so the carpenter encouraged the goldsmith.”—Isaiah. “And the great man he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up.”—Micah.