[39]. That John Rogers could not be induced to either admit or deny the charge presented for the purpose of obtaining the divorce, is from a statement to that effect made by Peter Pratt, in “The Prey Taken from the Strong.” This is one of the few statements made in that pamphlet, which seem likely to be true and are not invalidated by proof to the contrary. It will be seen that, at a later date, this attitude of complete silence is frequent with the Rogerenes, before the court.
[40]. May 25, 1675.
“The testimony against him was his own wife—to whom he told it all with his own mouth, and not in trouble of mind, but in a boasting manner as of free grace, yt he was pardoned. This was much about ye time he fell into yt cursed opinion of anabaptism.”—Journal of Mr. Bradstreet. (See “New England Genealogical and Historical Register,” Vol. 9, p. 47.)
With above compare:—
“After it pleased God, through His rich grace in Christ Jesus, to take the guilt of my sins from my conscience and to send the Spirit of His Son into my heart, whereby he did reveal unto me His love and His acceptance of me in Jesus Christ, this unspeakable mercy did greatly engage my heart to love God and diligently to search the Scriptures, that thereby I might know how to serve God acceptably, for then I soon became a seeker how to worship God.”—Epistle of John Rogers to the Seventh Day Baptists.
“And the coming to witness the truth of those 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.”—John Rogers, Jr.—Reply to Peter Pratt.
[41]. See preamble to will of James Rogers, [Part I., Chapter I].
[42]. See “History of Stratford.”
[43]. An evident attempt is made by the Griswolds, in inserting this item in the bill for damages, to lay the illness of Elizabeth following the birth of her child to some failure on the part of the young husband to suitably provide for her confinement. Her son, John Rogers, 2d, however, in his “Reply” to his half-brother, Peter Pratt, mentions a far more serious and lengthy illness that befell Elizabeth upon the birth of her latter son, during which illness both she and her husband, Peter Pratt, Sr., had great misgivings regarding the justice of her divorce from John Rogers. That the illness in either case was of a constitutional origin is indicated by the parallel cases.
[44]. Elizabeth afterwards appears to have all the rents towards support of the children. Later, when the children are grown, she gives up the farm to John Rogers, for a reasonable consideration, as will be seen.