CHAPTER IV.
One has said that an angel would feel as much honored in receiving a commission to sweep the streets as though called to a service higher in the world’s estimation. We confess to something like a street-cleaning duty in removing the scandals which have settled about the name of John Rogers.
Since the enemies of Rogers have mainly taken their artillery from Pratt’s work, the falsity of which has in part been shown, we now proceed to give it further notice and refutation. Base coin is sometimes passed around and received as genuine; put to the test, its worth vanishes. Written in a malignant spirit, with no regard to truth whatever, the untrustworthiness of Pratt’s book can scarcely be overstated.
We will continue to quote from this book, and John Rogers, 2d’s “Reply” to the same.
It remains (says Pratt) that I speak of the third step in Quakerism taken by John Rogers, who received his first notions of spirituality from Banks and Case, a couple of lewd men[[11]] of that sort called Singing Quakers. These men, as they danced through this Colony, lit on John Rogers and made a Quaker of him; but neither they nor the Spirit could teach him to sing. However, he remained their disciple for a while, and then, being wiser than his teachers, made a transition to the church of the Seventh Day Baptists. But, the same spirit not deserting him, but setting in with the disposition of his own spirit to a vehement affectation of precedency, he resolved to reach it, though it should happen to lead to singularity; whereupon, after a few revelations, he resolved upon Quakerism again, though under a modification somewhat new. I call it Quakerism, not but that he differed from them in many things, yet holding with them in the main, being guided by the same spirit, acknowledging their spirit and they his, he must needs be called a Quaker.
Reply of John Rogers, Jr.:—
Every article of this whole paragraph (so far as it relates to John Rogers) is notoriously false; for the proof of which I have taken these following testimonies from two of his ancient neighbors, which though they have always been enemies to his principles, yet have been very free in giving their testimonies to the truth, signifying their abhorrence of such an abuse done to a dead man.
“The testimony of Daniel Stubbins, aged about eighty years, testifieth, that from a lad I have been near neighbor and well acquainted with John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, to his dying day, and do testify that the time he first pretended to spiritual conversation and declared himself to be a converted man, upon which he broke off from the Presbyterian church in New London and joined with the Seventh Day Baptists, and his wife therefore left him and went to her father, Matthew Griswold of Lyme, was about the year 1674, and the time that Case and Banks, with a great company of other ranters, first came into this Colony was about twelve years after; and I never heard or understood that J. Rogers ever inclined to their way, or left any of his former principles on their account.
Daniel Stubbins.”
Dated in New London, June 27, 1725.
“The testimony of Mary Tubbs, aged about seventy-seven years, testifieth, that I was a near neighbor to John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, at the time when his wife left him and went to her father, Matthew Griswold of Lyme, and I had discourse with her the same day she went, and she informed me that it was because her husband had renounced his religion and was joined with the Seventh Day Baptists, and this was about the year 1674, and it was many years after that one Case and Banks, with a great company of ranters, first came into this Colony and came to New London and were some days at the house of James Rogers, where John Rogers then dwelt; but I never understood that John Rogers inclined to their way or principles, or countenanced their practices, but continued in the religion which he was in before.
Mary Tubbs.”
Dated in New London, June 29, 1725.
Now the first falsehood which I shall observe in this place is his asserting that “the first notions of spirituality taken by John Rogers were from Case and Banks,” etc. Whereas the above witnesses testify that he had broke off from the church of New London and joined with the Seventh Day Baptists; upon which his wife had left him, and that all this was many years before Case and Banks came into this Colony.
The second falsehood is his saying, “These men lit on John Rogers and made a Quaker of him.” Whereas these witnesses testify that he never inclined to their way, nor countenanced their practices, but continued in the religion which he was in before.
The third falsehood is his saying, “He remained their disciple for awhile;” since it is fully proved that he never was their disciple at all.
The fourth falsehood is his saying that “after he had remained their disciple awhile he made a transition to the church of the Seventh Day Baptists.” Whereas it is fully proved that his joining with the Seventh Day Baptists was many years before those people first came into this Colony.
And among his other scoffs and falsehoods, he asserts that John Rogers “often changed his principles.” To which I answer that upon condition that Peter Pratt will make it appear that John Rogers ever altered or varied in any one article of his religion, since his separating from the Presbyterian church and joining with the Seventh Day Baptists, which is more than fifty years past (excepting only as to the observation of the seventh day), I will reward him with the sum of £20 for his labor. No, verily, he mistakes the man; it was not John Rogers that used to change his religion, but it was Peter Pratt himself.
Here follow more of the false statements made by Peter Pratt, which have been repeated by Trumbull, Barber, and others:—
Great part of his imprisonment at Hartford was upon strong suspicion of his being accessory to the burning of New London meeting-house.
To which John Rogers, 2d, replies:—
As to this charge against John Rogers concerning New London meeting-house, were it not for the sake of those who live remote, I should make no reply to it; because there are so many hundreds of people inhabiting about New London who know it to be notoriously false, and that John Rogers was a close prisoner at Hartford (which is fifty miles distant from New London) several months before and three years after said meeting-house was burnt. And that this long imprisonment was for refusing to give a bond of £50, which he declared he could not in conscience do, and to pay a fine of £5, which he refused to do, for which reason he was kept a prisoner, from the time of his first commitment, three years and eight months, and then set at liberty by open proclamation, is so fully proved by the records of Hartford that I presume none will dare contradict.
And now, in order to prove Peter Pratt’s affirmation to be false, in that he affirms that “great part of his imprisonment at Hartford was upon strong suspicion of his being accessory to the burning of New London meeting-house,” take these following testimonies:—
“The testimony of Thomas Hancox, aged about eighty years, testifieth, That when I was goal keeper at Hartford, John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, was a prisoner under my charge for more than three years; in which time of his confinement at Hartford, New London meeting-house was burnt, and I never heard or understood that the Authority, or any other person, had any mistrust that he was any way concerned in that fact, nor did he ever suffer one hour’s imprisonment on that account.
Thomas Hancox, Kinsington, Sept. 17, 1725.”
“Samuel Gilbert, aged sixty-two years, testifieth and saith: That at the time when John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, was a prisoner several years at Hartford, I did at the same time keep a public house of entertainment near the prison, and was well knowing to the concerns of the said Rogers all the time of his imprisonment, and I do farther testify that New London meeting-house was burnt at the time while he was a prisoner in said prison, but no part of his imprisonment was upon that account.
Samuel Gilbert, October, 1725.”
Thus it plainly appears that this affirmation concerning New London meeting-house is a positive falsehood.
He (Pratt) further says that “Rogers held downright that man had no soul at all, and that though he used the term, yet intended by it either the natural life, or else the natural faculties, which he attributed to the body, and held that they died with it, even as it is with a dog.”
In answer to this notorious falsehood charged upon John Rogers, I shall boldly appeal to all mankind who had conversation with him in his lifetime; for that they well knew it to be utterly false: and for the satisfaction of such as had not acquaintance with him, I shall refer them to his books, and particularly in this point to his “Exposition on the Revelations,” beginning at page 232, where he largely sets forth the Resurrection of the Body, both of the just and unjust, and of the eternal judgment which God shall then pass upon all, both small and great. All which sufficiently proves Peter Pratt guilty of slandering and belying a dead man, a crime generally abhorred by all sober people; and so shall pass to his 3d chapter, judging that by these few remarks which have been taken, the reader may plainly see that the account he pretends to give of John Roger’s principles is so false and self-contradictory that it deserves no answer at all, and that it was great folly in Peter Pratt so to expose himself as to pretend to give an account of John Roger’s principles in such a false manner; since John Rogers himself has largely published his own principles in print, which books are plenty, and will fully satisfy every one that desires satisfaction in that matter of what I have here asserted.
In page 48 he (Pratt) tells the reader as follows: “But John Rogers held three ordinances of religious use; viz., Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and imposition of hands.” Again, “that all worship is in the heart only, and there are no external forms.”
Here the reader may observe that, first, he owns that Rogers held three external ordinances, viz., Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and imposition of hands; and in the very next words forgets himself and tells the reader that Rogers held all worship to be in the heart only, and that there were no external forms. See how plainly he contradicts himself.
Here we ought to say, without soiling our pen with his obscene language, that what Peter Pratt said and others have quoted about John Roger’s “maid” has reference to his second wife, an account of his marriage to whom, with other facts of the case, we now give to the reader, in the words of John Rogers, 2d, in his “Reply” to Peter Pratt:—
After John Roger’s first wife had left him, on account of his religion, he remained single for more than twenty-five years, in hopes that she would come to repentance and forsake her unlawful companions. But, seeing no change in her, he began to think of marrying another woman, and, accordingly, did agree upon marriage with a maid belonging to New London, whose name was Mary Ransford. They thereupon agreed to go into the County Court and there declare their marriage; and accordingly they did so, he leading his bride by the hand into court, where the judges were sitting and a multitude of spectators present, and then desired the whole assembly to take notice that he took that woman to be his wife; his bride also assenting to what he said. Whereupon, the judge offered to marry them in their form, which John Rogers refused, telling him that he had once been married by their Authority, and by their Authority they had taken away his wife again and rendered him no reason why they did it. Upon which account, he looked at their form of marriage to be of no value, and therefore would be married by their form no more, etc. And from the court he went to the Governor’s house with his bride, and declared their marriage to the Governor,[[12]] who seemed to like it well enough, and wished them much joy, which is a usual compliment.
And thus having given a true and impartial relation of the manner of his marriage to his second wife, which I doubt not but every unprejudiced person will judge to be as authentic as any marriage that was ever made in Connecticut Colony, in the next place, I shall proceed to inform the reader in what manner he came to be deprived of this his second wife; for, after they had lived together about three years and had had two children, the court had up John Roger’s wife and charged her with fornication, for having her last child, pretending no other reason than that the marriage was not lawful; and thereupon called her Mary Ransford, after her maiden name. And then vehemently urged her to give her oath who was the father of her child, which they charged to be by fornication, her husband standing by her in court, with the child in his arms, strictly commanding her not to take the oath, for these three following reasons:—
First, because it was contrary to Christ’s command, Matt. v, 34, “But I say unto you, swear not at all,” etc.
A second reason was because it was a vain oath, inasmuch as they had been married so publickly, and then lived together three years after, and that he himself did not deny his child, nor did any person doubt who was the father of the child, etc.
A third reason was, he told her, they laid a snare for her, and wanted her oath to prove their charge, which was that the child was by fornication; so that her swearing would be that he was the father of that child by fornication, and so it would not only be a reproach to him and the child, but also a false oath, forasmuch as the child was not by fornication.
For these reasons, he forbid her taking the oath, but bid her tell the court that her husband was the father of that child in his arms. He also told her in the court that if she would be ruled by him, he would defend her from any damage. But if she would join with the court against him, by being a witness that the child was by fornication, he should scruple to own her any more as a wife.
But the court continuing to urge her to take the oath, promising her favor if she took it, and threatening her with severity if she refused to take it, at length she declared she would not be ruled by John Rogers, but would accept of the court’s favor, and so took the oath; and the favor which the court granted her was to pass the following sentence:—
New London, at a County Court, the 15th of September, 1702.
Mary Ransford of New London, being presented by the grandjurymen to this court, for having a child by fornication, which was born in March last, and she being now brought before this court to answer for the same, being examined who was the father of her child, she said John Rogers senior of New London, to which she made oath, the said Rogers being present.
The court having considered her offense, sentence her, for the same, to pay unto the County Treasurer forty shillings money, or to be whipt ten stripes on the naked body. She is allowed till the last of November to pay the fine.
A true copy of the Record, as far as it respects the said Mary Ransford, her examination and fine.
Test. John Picket, Clerk.
And now the poor woman found that by her oath she had proved her child illegitimate, and thereby denied her marriage, and that her husband dare not own her as a wife; for I think that no woman can be said to be a wife (though ever so lawfully married) if she turn so much against her husband as not only to disobey his most strict commands, but also to prove by her oath that his children are by fornication, as it was in this case. She was also greatly terrified on account of her whipping, to avoid which she some time after made her escape out of the Government, to a remote Island in Rhode Island Government, called Block Island; and in about eight years after she had thus been driven from her husband she was married to one Robert Jones, upon said Island, with whom she still lives in that Government.
Whereupon, John Rogers again lived single twelve years, which was four years after she was married to Robert Jones, and then he made suit to one Sarah Coles of Oyster Bay, on Long Island, a widow, and by reason of the many false reports which had spread about the Country, as if he had turned away his second wife, etc., he offered the woman to carry her to Block Island, where she might know the truth of the matter, by discoursing with the woman herself, as well as the Authority and neighbors, which accordingly he did; by which means she was so well satisfied that she proposed to be married before they came off; and accordingly was married, by Justice Ray.
There are other scandalous stories quoted nearly verbatim from Pratt’s book by Trumbull, which neither space, nor the patience of the reader, nor delicacy permits us to repeat, all of which have been completely refuted by John Rogers, 2d, in his “Reply” to the same.
We will presently entertain the reader with Pratt’s poetical effort deriding baptism by immersion, concerning which John Rogers, 2d, replies. It should be remembered that Peter Pratt was the son of John Roger’s first wife, by her second husband, and was much at the house of John Rogers, Sr., on visits to his half brother, John, 2d. He was baptized (viz., rebaptized by immersion) by Rogers, and even suffered imprisonment, at one time, with other Rogerenes, but apostatized under persecution and returned to the Congregational church, from which, after the death of Rogers, he threw at him those poisonous shafts of which the reader has seen some specimens.
Here follow Pratt’s verses, quoted in “Reply” of John Rogers, 2d:—
And now as to his songs and other verses, I shall be very brief, only mentioning some of the gross blasphemies which they contain, not doubting that all sober Christians, together with myself, will abhor such profaneness as may be seen in page 36, and is as follows:—
That sacramental bond,
By which my soul was tied
To Christ in baptism, I cast off
And basely vilified.
I suffered to be washed
As Satan instituted,
My body, so my soul thereby,
Became the more polluted.
I suppose he intends by that sacramental bond by which he says his soul was tied to Christ, that non-scriptural practice of sprinkling a little water out of a basin on his face in his unregenerate state. Now the scriptures abundantly show us that the Spirit of God is the bond by which God’s children are sealed or united to him; as Eph. i, 13, Eph. iv, 3 and 30, John iii, 24. Thus it plainly appears it is the Spirit of God that is the bond by which God’s children are united to Christ, and not by sprinkling a little elementary water on their faces, as Peter Pratt has ignorantly and blasphemously asserted.
Whereas he says he suffered his body to be washed as Satan instituted, I suppose he intends his being baptized according to the rule of Scripture of which he gives us an account, page 18, how that he was stirred up to this ordinance from those words, Acts xxii, 16, “And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins,” and that accordingly he was baptized by burying his body in the water.
As to the first institutor of this ordinance, we know that John the Baptist was the first practiser of it, therefore let us take his testimony as to the institutor of it, which is to be seen John i, 33, “And I knew Him not, but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit,” etc.
And here I suppose none but Peter Pratt will dare deny that it was God Almighty that instituted this ordinance and sent John the Baptist to administer it.
Having given a specimen of Peter Pratt’s poetical effusions, we will further entertain the reader with some verses by John Rogers, 2d, which precede his “Reply” to Pratt’s book:—
A POETICAL INQUIRY INTO WHAT ADVANTAGE P. PRATT COULD
PROMISE HIMSELF BY HIS LATE ENGAGEMENT WITH
A DEAD MAN.
I marvel that when Peter Pratt, in armor did appear,
He should engage, in such a rage, a man that’s dead three year.
Could he suppose for to disclose his valour in the field?
Or by his word, or wooden sword, to make his en’my yield?
Did he advance, thinking by chance, and taking so much pain,
To fright away a lump of clay, some honour for to gain?
Was his intent by argument, some honour for to have?
Or gain repute by making mute a man that’s in his grave?
Why did he strain his foolish brain, and muse upon his bed,
To study lies, for to despise a man when he is dead?
Why did he flout his venom out against the harmless dirt,
Which when alive did never strive to do the creature hurt?
No manly face, or Godly grace such actions will uphold,
Yet ’tis not new; apostates crew did do the like of old.
When Cain let in that dreadful sin which never can be pardoned,
He then did hate his loving mate, because he was so hardened.
Though Saul before did much adore his well-belovèd David,
Yet in the state that I relate his life he greatly cravèd.
In Judas we may also see another strange disaster,
Who for small gain did take such pain to sell his blessèd Master.
Apostates then, the vilest men, they’re always most forlorn;
Because such deeds from them proceeds which other men do scorn.
Such raging waves Satan depraves of all humanity;
They can embrace no saving grace, nor yet civility.
Had but this strife been in the life of his supposèd foe,
Then Peter Pratt would like a rat into a corner go;
Or flee apace, or hide his face, although that now he glories
To trample on one dead and gone, with his debauchèd stories.
A certain tribe of Indians would not allow the burial of any one until some person could speak a word in his praise. On one such occasion, silence long reigned, when a squaw arose and said, “He was a good smoker.” What can we say of Peter Pratt, that the right of sepulture may be granted him? This may be said: He at one time thought he had discovered the “wonderful art of longitude,” by which he expected to be made famous the world over, and presented his scheme to the faculty of Yale College, who regarded it as the product of an hallucinated mind. Upon this, Pratt gave up the fallacy, which should be spoken to his praise. The following testimony which he gave in his book regarding John Rogers, 2d, and incidentally in favor of John Rogers senior, should also be put to his credit:—
My near alliance to John Rogers (then junior) who is my brother, viz., the son of my mother, proved an unhappy snare to me. He being, naturally, a man as manly, wise, facetious and generous perhaps as one among a thousand, I was exceedingly delighted in and with his conversation. He also endeared himself to me very much by his repeated expressions of complacency in me, by which I was induced to be frequently in his company and often at his house, where his father would be entertaining me with exhortations to a religious life, warning me of the danger of sin, and certainty of that wrath which shall come on all that know not God. I would sometimes, for curiosity, be inquiring into his principles, and othertimes, for diversion, be disputing a point with him; but I knew not that the dead were there, Prov. ix, 18. I was not religious enough to be much concerned about his principles, but pitiful enough to be extremely moved with the story of his sufferings. I had also a reserve in his favor, that it was possible he might be a good man (the strangeness of his doctrine notwithstanding), especially seeing all his sufferings were not able to shake his constancy, or oblige him to recede from the least part of his religion.
And here a just tribute may be paid to John Rogers, 2d, from whom we have so largely quoted. The appreciative reader will agree with us in saying he was a son worthy of the father, in defence of whose honor he wrote. Clear in his statement of facts, conclusive in his reasoning, and abundantly supplied with authority in proof of his assertions, his words bear the sacred impress of truth. Malice has raised no aspersions against his character. “Notwithstanding,” says Miss Caulkins, “his long testimony and his many weary trials and imprisonments, he reared to maturity a family of eighteen children, most of them, like their parents, sturdy Rogerenes.” As soon as he was able to make choice for himself, about the age of sixteen, he left the home of his grandfather, Matthew Griswold of Lyme, the ancestor of many noted men, and chose to live with his father. His sister did the same thing at the age of fourteen, and was married at her father’s house. A purer, sweeter, and higher tribute could scarcely be paid to that heroic defender of religious liberty and great sufferer for conscience’ sake.
John Rogers, 2d, was the author of several other books besides his “Reply to Peter Pratt,” each of them being of the same able character.