[55]. It will later be seen that the custom, on such occasions, of ejecting disturbers of meeting from the church in a violent manner, was calculated to create a general excitement among the spectators.
[56]. That no actual relapse to Quakerism had occurred at the time should have been evident from the fact that John Rogers is, even in this very month of June, baptizing, and undoubtedly as usual administering the Lord’s Supper, ordinances to which the Quakers were entirely opposed.
[57]. See “Prey Taken from the Strong,” and Reply to same by John Rogers, 2d.
[58]. See [Part I, Chap. I]. For full preamble, see “James Rogers and His Descendants,” by J. S. Rogers, Boston.
[59]. In point of fact, only one of the children made any complaint regarding boundaries; but this complaint resulted in a suit that was carried through several courts. Undoubtedly, by a cursory view of this frequently appearing suit and also that of Samuel Beebe, on the records, Miss Caulkins judged that there was a general “contention.” Rev. Mr. Blake, in his Church History—New London Congregational—in adopting this error of Miss Caulkins, has rendered it that “the children” of James Rogers “engaged in bitter controversies” over his estate.
[60]. Stephen Prentis eventually became one of the prominent and wealthy citizens of the place, a holder of local and colonial offices, captain of a train band, attorney and also a farmer on a large scale. He was a member of the Congregational church through life, as was also his wife. Their home farm was near what is now Mill Stone Point.
[61]. Miss Caulkins states that his mother afterwards attempted to secure his return to her, but could not succeed in overcoming his determination to remain with his father. The evidence of this has escaped our observation.
[62]. His son states (see Part I) that his imprisonments amounted to one-third of his life after his conversion, viz.: one-third of the period between 1674 and 1721.
[63]. Contributions of articles, even of clothing, for the poor, for the minister or for church adornment, and other purposes, were common in those days; and for such donations there was a large box, quite stationary, and usually near the pulpit. This appears not to have been known to Miss Caulkins, who supposes a box to have been passed around, as the box for money contributions of later times.
[64]. For Apology, see [Part I, Chap. I.]