[84]. The words spoken do not appear on record.
[85]. It would be interesting to know exactly what doctrine or doctrines were involved. By the occurrence of this suit so soon after John Roger’s release from an imprisonment on charge of “Blasphemy,” it would seem not unlikely that the Scripture expounded at the house of Thomas Young in 1694 (probably Romans viii) might be that in question. Public “disputes” of this kind were then and for many years after in vogue in Connecticut.
[86]. For full title, see publications of John Rogers, at end of Appendix.
[87]. This fact is revealed by after procedures regarding settlement of the residue of the estate, her death not being found on record.
[88]. The County Court record says Mary was fined for “threatening” to pour scalding water on the head of the collector. Miss Caulkins inadvertently says she was fined for “pouring” the same.
[89]. In this treatise “On Divorce,” he shows that the New Testament admits but one cause for divorce, and does not admit adultery as a cause. Therefore (by inference), although, by her after marriages, his first wife leads an adulterous life (see statement of his son, [Part I., Chapter IV.]), he does not consider that this fact releases him from his marriage bond. But since, by the law of God (“Mosaic” and still prevailing in the time of Christ), a man was allowed another than his first and chiefest wife, in taking Mary Ransford for his wife under the forced separation from his first wife, he breaks no law of God. Not that he so much as mentions himself, Elizabeth or Mary in this treatise; but the above is plainly inferable to those acquainted with his history at this period. Since, in granting the divorce to Elizabeth, the court left him free to marry again, he broke no civil law in taking another wife.
[90]. It may be left to legal judgment to decide whether this marriage was not more in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law than was the divorce granted by the General Court of Connecticut, through no testimony save that of a wife, bent on divorce, against her husband, regarding a matter which he had confided to her in marital confidence; said divorce being granted in the very face of the “we find not the bill” rendered by the grand jury in regard to the charge made by the wife.
[91]. Everything involved in the command to “render to Cæsar,” etc., being a law of Christ, he held binding, as regarded ordinary civil legislation.
[92]. Mary’s account in her petition to the General Court, 1703. See “Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Court Files.
[93]. The statements in this paragraph are from an affidavit still extant at New London, in the handwriting of John Rogers.