FROM REPLY TO PETER PRATT.
John Rogers, 2d.
As it has ever been allowed that the defaming of the dead is a mark of the most unmanly and base spirit of a coward and ought to be abhorred by all persons who bear the image of man; then how much more abominable is it of P. P. to sport himself with his own lies over a man in his grave? And I think no person of common reason will expect any apology of me on account of this my undertaking, since my silence in this matter would have rendered me very unmanly....
... If John Roger’s books contain “but few of his principles” then how comes P. P. to know what his principles are, several years after his death? except the same spirit which once deceived him in the matter of longitude has again deceived him concerning J. R.’s principles; and we have as much reason to question the truth of what he tells us of J. R.’s principles (since he has no better proof than his own bare word) as the General Assembly had to question the truth of longitude, which soon after proved a delusion of Satan....
Now by these foolish and vain pretended reasons, the reader may plainly see that he only wanted an excuse to evade J. R.’s books, that he might take his full swing to bely and abuse him at his pleasure; because he well knew that if he had quoted his books, they would have discovered his falsehoods....
But I should not have enlarged so much upon this head, were it not that I am sensible that there are many thousands of grown persons in this Colony that for want of opportunity to be informed in the principles of other sects remain so ignorant that they know no difference between the Church of England and the Papists, nor between the Quakers and the Baptists, but esteem each couple to be alike. And now is it possible that such persons should be able to discern the ignorance of P. P.?...
... Now how marvellous is it that P. P., who knew himself to be a man so inconstant and changeable, not only in his worldly concerns from his very childhood, but also in matters of religion since he has arrived to riper years, should presume to put out a book only on his bare word, without any proof at all. Surely he might reasonably have thought that all who knew him would expect better proof from such an inconstant person than from any other man....
FROM ANSWER TO MR. BYLES, BY JOHN
AND JOSEPH BOLLES.
Considerable light is thrown upon the “Outbreak” of 1764-66 by a Rogerene pamphlet (of about 1759), which appeared in several editions, sometimes ascribed on the title-page to John Bolles, sometimes to his son Joseph, and probably the joint work of father and son, written out by the latter; thus having a style noticeably different from that of John Bolles, although equally clear-cut and forcible. John Bolles, being at the date of this work eighty-two years of age, may be supposed to have welcomed the aid of his son Joseph, both as collaborator and amanuensis. The following is from a copy of this work to be found in the New London Public Library:—
An Answer to A Book entitled The Christian Sabbath, explained and vindicated in a discourse on Exodus XX. 8.[[192]] Jan. 14, 1759, upon a particular occasion, by Mather Byles, pastor of “The First Church of Christ” (as he saith) in New London, written by Joseph Bolles, in behalf of the rest which suffer persecution for breaking said pretended sabbath.
In page 5 of Mather Byles sermon, he says: The Christian Sabbath has of late been publickly attacked; and those who observe it have been challenged to show any scripture warrant for the practice.
Ans.
We have been imprisoned 23 at a time, 8 of us about 7 months, and some of the best of our cattle and horses and other goods taken away, and 3 of us cruelly whipped, near 20 stripes apiece, for doing the business of our ordinary calling on the 1st day of the week, which he calls the Sabbath, all within 9 months. And in these persecutions we have continually desired our persecutors to show any Scripture warrant for their practice; we have also sent forth advertisements promising ten pounds reward to any person that could show us one word in the Bible that forbids labor on this pretended Sabbath; which we suppose he calls “a challenge;” and because he cannot find a word in the Bible that forbids labor on his pretended Sabbath he has preached a sermon instead thereof, and though he calls it the Christian Sabbath, it is not called so in Scripture; by which it is evident it was not the Christian Sabbath in the apostles time; for if it had been they would have called it so. Also his text is part of the commandment to labor six days and rest the seventh; so that his own text that he builds his Sabbath upon requires labor on his pretended Sabbath. For it says six days shalt thou labor; and we know that this pretended Sabbath is the first of the six days....
... In page 18 he says, “And lastly to assign a reason why there is no command for this Sabbath in the New Test.;” and in his next page he says, “The apostles left it to after discoveries,” which will be answered in its place. But neither God nor man require us to keep a Sabbath without a law, “For where no law is, there is no transgression.” Rom. IV. 15. And sin is not imputed when there is no law: And the “Confession of Faith” of this Colony requires a command for all the worship we perform to God, in page 7, and there is no discovery of this pretended Sabbath in the Bible; for he says, “the apostles left it to after discoveries,” and the first command that we have discovered for this pretended Sabbath was more than 300 years after Christ by Constantine the emperor, recorded in “Fox’s Acts and Monuments,” Vol. I. p. 134, in these words: “The Sunday he commanded to be kept holy by all men and free from all judiciary causes, from markets, marts, fairs and other manual labors, only husbandry excepted.” Here we may observe no husbandry labor is forbidden, in this “after discovery.”
Also king Inas, who reigned in England, in the year of our Lord 712, commanded that infants should be baptised within 30 days, and that no man should labor on Sunday. “Fox’s Acts etc.” Vol. I, P. 1016. Observe in this after discovery all labour is forbidden; as popish darkness increased, this Sabbath strengthened and infant baptism was also “discovered.”
Also king Edgar, who began his reign in England in the year of our Lord 959, he ordained that Sunday should be kept holy from Saturday noon till Monday morning, and he ordained and decreed for holy days and fasting days. “Fox’s Acts,” Vol. I. P. 1017. Observe this “after discovery” being in midnight popish darkness, this Sabbath was kept more strict and they also discovered half a day more, and holy days and fasting days to be observed. Also king Canutus, who began to reign in England in the year 1016, he commanded celebration of the Sabbath from Saturday noon till Monday morning. This king “discovered” it by the name of “Sabbath”; but the other three “discovered” it by the name of “Sunday.”
Also in our Colony there is an ample “after discovery” of it by the name of Sabbath or Lord’s day, which exceeds the four other “after discoveries;” with a famous law to torture the bodies of them that break this pretended Sabbath, by whipping, not exceeding 20 stripes if they refuse to pay a fine; and doubtless there has been more “after discoveries” by express commands, for this pretended Sabbath, in Rome, France and Spain. Therefore if M. B. will preach up this pretended Sabbath, which he says the apostles left to “after discoveries,” he ought to have taken his text out of the forementioned “after discoveries,” where there are express commands to build their Sabbath upon; but, as he builds it on God’s commandment, which commands labor on his pretended Sabbath, it has no foundation to stand upon, and therefore stands upon nothing. No “after discovery,” neither this pretended Sabbath, infant baptism, nor the mass nor purgatory, ought to be built on any text in the Bible. But whoever preaches up any of these “after discoveries” they ought to take a text out of the law book, where they are instituted and commanded, and not out of the Bible where they are not “discovered.”
How fully Mr. Byles had endeavored to stir up the authorities to take the offenders strenuously in hand will be inferred from the following, from the same pamphlet.
... He calls us deluded, blind, obstinate, because we suffer persecution for breaking a Sabbath which he says the apostles left to “after discoveries.” But it is this sort of ministers that preach to our General Court to suppress or persecute them that walk by the apostle’s doctrine, for not observing this Sabbath which he says the apostles left to “after discoveries.”
He further says:
“Take away the Sabbath and what will be the consequence?”
Ans. He speaks like the idolaters of old. Judges XVIII. 24. “Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and the priests,—and what have I more?” Here we may see the idolaters speak all with one voice; their heart is after their idols and their priests more than after God.
Next he says: “Errors in doctrine and corruption in practice would break in upon us like a flood, immorality would triumph without control.”
Ans.
It is such a time now, for there are errors in doctrine, manifest errors indeed, in this and other sermons; and corruption in practice is already broken in upon us like a flood, and immorality triumphs almost without control among the people, who are encouraged to it by the example of their priests, which live immoral lives in covetousness, pride, fulness of bread and abundance of idleness.... Also the observers of this pretended Sabbath do allow that there is more immorality amongst themselves than there is among us who do not observe it. Immorality triumphs in a high degree, even in gathering money for the priests of many poor people to whom there is more need to give, and casting some into prison to force them against their conscience to pay money to maintain such priests in idleness,[[193]] which they know God hath not sent to teach them.
EXTRACTS FROM “LOOKING GLASS FOR
THE PRESBYTERIANS OF NEW LONDON.”
John Rogers, 3d.
To see their Worship and worshippers Weighed in the balance and Found Wanting.—With a true account of what the people called Rogerenes have suffered in that town, from the 10th of June 1764 to the 13th of December 1766. Who suffered for testifying, That it was contrary to Scripture for ministers of the gospel to teach for hire. That the first day of the week was no Sabbath by God’s appointment. That sprinkling infants is no baptism and nothing short of blasphemy, being contrary to the example set us by Christ and his holy apostles. That long public prayers in synagogues is forbidden by Christ. Also for reproving their church and minister for their great pride, vain-glory and friendship of the world they lived in.—With a brief discourse in favour of women’s prophesying or teaching in the church.—Written by John Rogers, New London. Providence N.E. Printed by the author 1767.
June 10, 1764. We went to the meeting house at New London, and some of our people went into the house and sat down, others tarried without and sat upon the ground some distance from the house. And when Mather Byles their priest began to say over his formal, synagogue prayer, forbidden by Christ, Mat. VI. 5 etc., some of our women began to knit, others to sew, that it might be made manifest they had no fellowship with such unfruitful works of darkness. But justice Coit and the congregation were much offended by this testimony, and fell upon them in the very time of prayer and pretended divine worship; also they fell upon all the rest of our people that were sitting quietly in the house, making no difference between them that transgressed the law and them that transgressed not; for they drove us all out of the house in a most furious manner; pushing, kicking, striking etc., so that the meeting was broken up for some considerable time and the house in great confusion: Moreover, they fell upon our friends that were sitting abroad, striking and kicking both men and women, old and young, driving all of us to prison in a furious and tumultuous manner.
... The authority and minister and some of the people were greatly offended at our opposing their false worship; for they carried on their worship in such pride, and so contrary to the Holy Scriptures that they could no ways defend it by the Scriptures and therefore took another way to defend it never practised by Christ or any of his followers. For justice Coit did continually fall upon us when we came among them and drive us to prison, in an angry and furious manner; sometimes twenty sometimes thirty in a day, striking and kicking both men and women, pulling off women’s caps and bonnets and tearing them to pieces with their hands, setting an example to the rest of the people; also he made no difference between them that spoke at the meeting house against their worship and those that did not speak; for his constant practice was to fall upon all our friends that came to the meeting house and all that he could see in sight of the house and drive them to prison, he and his company, in a most furious and tumultuous manner, stopping their mouths when they went to speak, choking them etc. Also he doubled our imprisonments every time we came among them; but this method he took added no peace to them, for some of our friends were always coming out of prison, as well as going in, ... However, this was the method they took, and after this manner they celebrated their Sabbaths from the 10th of June to the 12th of August.
... February 16. Some of our friends were sitting quietly in the meeting house, between meetings, and Col. Saltonstall[[194]] came in and laid hold of an old man that had the numb palsy, aged 73 years, and with great violence hauled him out of the seat, setting an example to others, who fell upon them and drove them out of the house and to the court house, in a furious manner, and carried them up through a trap door into a dark garret and locked them in, and at night a company of their base men got together, among which were ... This base company went into the court house and shut themselves in and took our friends out of the attic and offered shameful abuse to our women in the dark.... Now after this shameful abuse to the women, they took two men and stripped off their clothes and tied them to a post in the court house and whipped them in a most unmerciful manner, especially one of them, which they struck unmerciful blows with a staff and with bunches of rods on his back, till it was like a jelly, also they rubbed tar into their wounds and whipped upon the tar, forcing it into their flesh, also they rubbed tar in the mouths of the men and women when they went to speak. When these two men were first tied to the post they sang praises to God, and in the time of their torment they called upon God to strengthen them. After this, they laid hold on these two men and forced them to run down near to the town wharf and threw them into the water several times; also they took their hats and threw water on them for some considerable time. Moreover, they threw the women into the water. And after this the sheriff’s eldest son and another man with him took a poor weakly woman, forty odd years of age, and forced her to run through the streets till she dropped down, and then they left her....
Now the next first day of the week, after Col. Saltonstall shut our friends up in the court house and set his son Dudley and others to abuse us, it being the 23d of February, we were coming to the meeting house again, but as soon as we appeared in sight, Col. Saltonstall run out and met us, and a great company with him, and fell upon us in a very angry manner, before we had spoke one word, to drive us to the court house, as he did the week before, when our friends were sitting quietly in the house between meetings. But as soon as they fell on us, we spoke and made a great noise, and refused to go with them, telling them we chose to be killed publickly before the people, rather than to be murdered privately in the court house.
Now the tumult grew very great, so that the meeting was broken up for some considerable time, and they dragged both men and women on the ground to the court house;[[195]] some by their hands, some by their legs, and some by the hair of their heads, striking them with their fists, kicking them, striking and punching them with staffs and tearing the clothes from their backs, and they dragged them into the court house and hauled both men and women up two pair of stairs, and hauled them up through a trap door into that dark loft that they had shut our friends up in the week before, and they locked them in. In this tumult an aged woman was so overcome that she fainted away and they left her lying on the ground. Now there were present in this riot justice ——, justice ——, justice ——, the high-sheriff and Col. ——, besides constables and grandjurymen: There was also a deacon among them, which makes us write as follows.
The deacon and the justices
Were busy in this fray,
Church members and grandjurymen
Forgot their Sabbath day.
After the tumult was over, these church members remembered their Sabbath, and returned to their pretended worship again: But as soon as that was over, the authority consulted together at the meeting house, and sent the high-sheriff, who came with a company of men and took down ten women out of that dark loft that the authority had shut them up in (two of these women had young children with them and another was big with child)[[196]] and committed them to prison, leaving near twenty small children motherless at their homes. Now as the high-sheriff was going from the meeting house, to commit these women to prison, some of the people of the town asked him what they were going to do with our friends; the sheriff answered that the women were to be committed to prison, but he said the men were to be delivered up to Satan to be buffetted. So the authority kept the men locked up in that dark garret till night, and then they were delivered up to the authority’s children and a rude company of young men, who came and unlocked the trap door and abused our friends in the manner following: They took down one man first out of this dark loft and brought him down into the lower room of the court-house, and tied his hands round a post, also they tied another line to his hands and hoisted him up by a tackle, then they brought his knees round the post and tied them with a line, and stripped his clothes up over his head and tied them also; then they whipped him in a very barbarous manner by the light of a candle. And when they had done torturing him, they let him down and shut him up in one of the court house chambers. They then brought down another out of the garret, and tortured him after the same manner as they did the first, and then shut him up also, pretending they would whip them all over again, except they would recant and promise not to come among them any more. There were twelve whippers that took turns at the whip, and commonly three or four to whip one man, one after another. They pretended to give those men thirty nine stripes each, but they used several sorts of whips, especially one unmerciful instrument made of cow-hide, also they whipped them with large rods tied together, some of which had ten in a bunch, so that they far exceeded thirty nine stripes, for they struck each person thirty nine times with that cruel instrument, except one man, which after they had struck him thirty unmerciful blows, one of the spectators ran and untied him, telling the whippers he was an old man and they ought to use some discretion towards him. Nine men were thus used this night, all heads of families, some of which were elderly men that had great families of children.
This whipping was executed in a very barbarous manner, for the rods were trimmed, and long sharp fangs left on them, to tear the flesh of the sufferers, also these men that whipped our friends struck them in such a violent manner with these heavy bunches of rods that they beat and bruised their flesh till it was like jelly. Moreover some of their wrists were so cut and their sinews so much hurt with the line they hung by, that several of their hands were numb for more than two months after. Also the two men that had been so unmercifully whipped by this company in the court house the week before, and otherwise abused, were of these men that suffered that night: And they struck one of these men, he that had been the most abused the week before, forty three cruel blows on his old sores, and ten or twelve of these blows were after he had swooned away. Our persecutors cut these rods upon their Sabbath, and fitted them at the court house, and Colonel Saltonstall was at the court house among them when they were preparing the rods.... When their persecutors heard them praying and calling on Christ for strength, they would threaten them, and whip them with all their might, endeavoring to make them promise to renounce their testimony against their worship, but were not able to make one of them renounce their testimony, or make any promise at all. But the sufferers told them to this effect, that what they did against their worship was for no other end but to please God and keep a good conscience, and that if they should promise to renounce their testimony God would renounce their souls forever. Also when some of the men that had suffered this cruel whipping were shut up in the court house chamber, they prayed earnestly to God to strengthen their brethren that were to suffer, also they prayed for their persecutors, for God gave them more than a common love to those that were tormenting them.
So after these nine men had suffered, they were set at liberty. Their persecutors threatened them to double their whipping every time they came to the meeting house among them. And no doubt they would have gone further, had not God prevented them by making a division among the people; the neighboring towns crying out against such barbarous and unlawful behavior; also it was a common saying among the people that they were sorry their rulers had resigned up their authority to a company of boys and set them to defend their worship....
The above is but a small part of such blood-curdling accounts, filling a good-sized pamphlet. Portions will be found in the “History of New London,” not quoted here. Near the end is something less thrilling.
Sept. 14, 1766. Some of our people went and sat down some distance from the priest’s house, and when he came out to go to meeting, they walked with him and endeavored to have some friendly discourse with him concerning the things of God; But the priest would not talk with them about the things of God. However, they walked with him and talked to him, but before they came to the meeting house, justice Coit began to kick them in a furious manner, especially the women. Also one of the townsmen fell upon them, punching both men and women with a staff in a cruel manner, so they were driven by some of the people to the upper end of the town.
The next first day of the week, being the 21st of Sept., as some of us were setting by the side of a house, between meetings, about four or five rods from the priest’s house, saying nothing to any person, the high-sheriff came, with some assistants and took us and sent for justice Coit, who came and committed eight men of us to prison. And on the 26th day of the same month, justice Coit came to the prison, and we were taken out and brought before him, and he charged us with disturbing the minister’s peace. We told him we had no thought of doing the minister any hurt. Justice Coit answered, that he did not suppose that we intended to strike him or wrestle with him, nor did he suppose we intended to hurt a hair of his head, but he supposed that we intended, when the minister came out, to go along by his side and talk with him. So when justice Coit had confessed that he did not suppose we intended to hurt a hair of the priest’s head, he fined us five shillings each, and required bonds of good behavior towards all his majesty’s subjects; but especially towards the priest. But we refused to give such bonds, looking upon the judgment to be very absurd, and that justice Coit’s supposing that we intended to talk with the priest was not breach of the peace in us, so he committed seven of us to prison again, all heads of families, one of which men was in his 75th year. Four of these men were kept in prison till the 13th of December following, and two were set at liberty about the 28th of November, and one within a few days after we were committed to prison.
Now after these men were committed to prison, our friends that were at liberty thought it necessary that some of our people should go on the first days of the week and set in the priest’s sight and not fear them that persecute the body. But when the priest saw them sitting in sight, if it were but a few women, he would not come out of his house to go to meeting.... Also this behavior of the priest occasioned much trouble to his poor flock, for sometimes the bell would ring and the people sit waiting for their priest till it was time for meeting to be half done: And then justice Coit, or some of the rest of his sheep, were obliged to come and move the women out of the priest’s sight, and guard their shepherd to the meeting house, lest these women should speak to him of the things of God.
It was almost every day of the first days of the week for the whole time of this imprisonment, which was near three months, that this shepherd was kept in his house by the sight of our friends, and sometimes only at the sight of a few women, and he never ventured to come out till some of his sheep came and drove the women away. But justice Coit committed no more of our friends to prison under bonds of good behavior because he supposed they intended to talk with the priest, after these men above mentioned. But the 23rd of November, one of our men told the priest, after he was come out of the meeting house, that he came to put him in mind how they kept God’s children in prison, and that their worship was upheld by cruelty. The priest answered to this effect, that they could uphold it in no other way. Then the man replied it must certainly be of the devil, if there was no other way to uphold it but by cruelty. But the sheriff struck him twice on the head, and punched him with his staff to prevent his speaking with the priest. And he and three women were committed to prison, but at night they were set at liberty.... God said, Jer. 1, 7,—“Thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.” Also the apostle Paul exhorteth us to be followers of him as he was of Christ, I Cor. XI. 1. And Paul spent much time in going from place to place, disputing in the synagogues on the Sabbath days, as appears in the Acts of the Apostles. And no doubt they built their synagogues, and thought, as our neighbors do, that they had a natural right to worship in them and that the apostle had no right to oppose them in their worship, for they were as much offended at the apostle as our neighbors are at us, for they called him a pestilent fellow, and said he was a mover of sedition throughout the world, Acts XXIV. 5. Also speaking of Paul and Silas they said, Acts XVII, “These that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also.”
EXTRACTS FROM “A DEBATE BETWEEN
REV. MR. BYLES AND THE CHURCH.”
Minister.
I have no particular objection to this church; but believe it to be a true church of our Lord etc.—but it is this mysterious call of Providence etc.—the churches of this and old England are equal to me. I am called from one to another where I can be of more usefulness, which is my duty.... And I believe you had better dismiss me, as you may get one that will do much better. You want one that will visit his parishioners—preach a lecture once in a while.... I was not made for a country minister.... I am weak and infirm[[197]] ... to come up this tedious hill all weathers—come in all out of breath ... obliged to preach till all in a sweat ... then go out in the cold, on this bleak place ... run the risk of my health etc.... And then to be treated as I have been by the Quakers ... disturbed upon the holy Sabbath. If I have not the Sabbath, what have I? tis the sweetest enjoyment of my whole life!—Insulted by them almost continually, surrounding my house. Many a time has the bell tolled for hours together, and at last one single man condescends to come down and drive them off. I would not live such a life over again for no consideration.... I see no prospect of amendment ... our laws are not put in full execution. (And then he went on to show wherein the civil authority, in his opinion, were deficient in duty with regard to the Quakers etc.[[198]])—My salary is not sufficient[[199]] etc.... My friends are in Boston. Etc.
People. These objections are nothing to the purpose, and what you say about the Quakers is a mere cobweb. As to the call of Providence, it plainly appears to be money.... Conscience! with what conscience can you leave this church of Christ? (They then set forth the obligations he was under to walk with this church; the connection between them was of a sacred nature etc.)
Minister. There are ministers enough to be had.
People. Yes, such as you are—We never could conceive nor imagine how you could spend your time before now, for you never visited any of your parishioners, but very seldom—seldom preached a new sermon; but old sermons over and over, again and again; and behold all this time you have been studying controversies, about modes and forms, rites and ceremonies! Is it for this we have been paying you this three years past, when you should have been about your ministry?... In regard to the Quakers insulting you etc. Is any man wholly free from persecution? If that is all you have, you ought to be very thankful that you have no more than a few poor old women sitting round your gate.