Simeon Digby

Simeon DIGBY (1520- 1570)  was  Alex’s 13th Great Grandfather; in the Miner line.

Since our Digby ancestors really were knights, their coat of arms belongs on each of their pages.

Simeon DIGBY was born 1520 Bedale, North Yorkshire, England. His parents were William DIGBY and Rose PRESTWICH. He married Anne GREY on 3 Jun 1539 in St. Pancras Soper Lane, Middlesex, England.   In March 1570, he was executed for High Treason;  hanged, beheaded, quartered to the four gates of the city in classic Braveheart fashion for his participation in the Rising of the North.

Simon Digby was imprisoned in York Castle Clifford's Tower before he was executed

Anne Grey was born 1511 in Kempston, Bedfordshire, England. Her parents were Regnold GREY and Elizabeth ISAAC.  Her grandparents were Thomas GREY and Bennet LAUNCELYN. She first married on 1531 in London, Middlesex, England to William Stockell (b. 1507 in London – d. 1538 in London) Anne died 28 Mar 1570 in England.

William Stockwell was born 1507 in London, Middlesex, England. He died 1538 in London, Middlesex, England

Children of Simeon and Anne:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Rowland Digby 1540
Bedale,
North Riding Yorkshire
2. Everard DIGBY betw. 1540 and 1545 in Stoke Dry, Rutlandshire or
Bedale, North Riding  Yorkshire
Katherine STOCKBRIDGE de Vandershaff Theobor [Theodore] de Newkirk
1581
London, England.
 24 Jan 1592.

The Rising of the North of 1569, also called the Revolt of the Northern Earls or Northern Rebellion, was an unsuccessful attempt by Catholic nobles from Northern England to depose Queen Elizabeth I of England and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots.

When Elizabeth I succeeded her sister Mary as Queen of England in 1558, her accession was disputed due to the disputed legitimacy of the marriage of the Queen’s parents – Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Opponents of Elizabeth turned to Mary, Queen of Scots, as the descendant of Henry’s sister Margaret Tudor. The claims were initially put forward by Mary’s father-in-law, King Henry II of France, but Mary upheld them after her return to Scotland in 1561.

Many English Catholics, then a significant portion of the population, increasingly supported Mary’s claim as a means of relief for their situation of religious persecution. This position was especially strong in Northern England, where several powerful nobles were Catholics; there had been similar risings against Henry VIII, the Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536 [Fans of the Tudors on Showtime will remember that bloody episode].  and Bigod’s Rebellion of 1537. Supporters of Mary hoped for aid from France and possibly Spain. Mary’s position was strengthened by the birth of her son, James, in 1566 but weakened again when she was deposed in July 1567.

Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland was a leader of the Northern Rebellion

The rebellion was led by Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland and Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland, who in November 1569 occupied Durham and celebrated Mass, in Durham Cathedral. Such public Catholic worship had been prohibited by the Protestant Queen Elizabeth. Westmorland’s wife, Jane Howard, played an active part in the rebellion, hoping to arrange a marriage between her brother Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk and the prospective Queen Mary.

Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland was the other principal leader

From Durham, the rebels marched south to Bramham Moor, while Elizabeth struggled to raise forces sufficient to confront them. But, hearing of a large force being raised by the Earl of Sussex, the rebels abandoned plans to besiege York, and captured Barnard Castle instead.

They then advanced to Clifford Moor, near Wetherby, where they found their troops consisted of 4000 foot and 600 horse only. Disappointed in the support they expected both in men and money, Westmorland began so visibly to despond that many of his men shrunk away, though Northumberland still kept resolute and was master of the field till the 13 Dec when Essex, been reinforced, marched out of York at the head of 7,000 men followed by a still larger army of another 12,000 under the Earl Of Warwick and the Lord Admiral Baron Clinton.

On Dec 17, on Croft Bridge, Sir George Bowes met the Queen’s leader, the Earl of Sussex and Sir Ralph Sadler. The rebels retreated northward first to Raby then to Auckland and Hexham and lastly to Naworth Castle, where the wily Dacre gave them but short shelter; he was in no mood to compromise himself.

Naworth Castle was the last hold out of Digby and the Northern Rebels

They disbanded their forces, and with a number of attendants fled to Liddisdale, Scotland. Most of the insurgents were killed or captured in flight. Among the prisoners were Simon Digby of Aiskew, and John Fulthorpe of Iselbeck, Esquires, Robert Pennyman of Stokesley and Thomas Bishop of Pocklington, gentlemen, who were imprisoned in York Castle, and afterwards hanged, headed, and quartered; and, according to the barbarous custom of that age, their heads were set up on the four principal gates of the city. Altogether, 600 supporters of Mary were executed, while many others fled into exile.

Aiskew is a village and civil parish in the Hambleton district of North YorkshireEngland. The village is situated to the immediate north-east of Bedale.  Due to expansion of Aiskew and Bedale, the two have essentially merged, the defining line being Bedale Beck.

In March 1570, Simeon was executed for High Treason;  hanged, beheaded, quartered to the four gates of  York in classic Braveheart fashion for his participation in the Rising of the North

The walls of York are punctuated by four main gatehouses, or ‘bars’, (Bootham Bar, Monk Bar, Walmgate Bar and Micklegate Bar). These restricted traffic in medieval times, and were used to extract tolls, as well as being defensive positions in times of war and were convenient sites for quarters.

Bootham Gate York - the north western gate of Eboracum.

Micklegate Bar Gates - York's Southern Gate

Monk Bar from Monk Gate York

Walmgate Bar - York

Sources:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg3008.htm#73809

About these ads
Posted in Line - Miner, Storied, Violent Death | Tagged | 3 Comments

Henry I of France

I started this post thinking we descended from William the Conqueror, but that lineage turns out to be 19th Century myth.  Instead, our ancestors include his uncle Henry  and his loyal companion William de Warenne.

This one was especially fun for me because it ends with 11 generations of Miners.

31st Generation

Henry I of FRANCE King of France was born 1007 in Meulan, Ile-de-France, France. A member of the House of Capet, his parents were Robert II and  Constance of Arles.  He first married Matilda (daughter of the Emperor Conrad II) on 1030 in Meulan, Ile-de-France, France. He next married Matilda of Frisia on 1043 in Paris, Ile-de-France, France.  He married Anna of KIEV Queen of France on 19 May 1051 in Rheims, Marne, France. Henri died 4 Aug 1060 in Vitry-en-Brie, France.

Henri I of France

Henri was the King of the Franks from 1031 to his death. The royal demesne of France reached its smallest size during his reign, and for this reason he is often seen as emblematic of the weakness of the early Capetians. This is not entirely agreed upon, however, as other historians regard him as a strong but realistic king, who was forced to conduct a policy mindful of the limitations of the French monarchy.

Henry  was crowned King of France at the Cathedral in Reims on 14 May 1027, in the Capetian tradition, while his father still lived. He had little influence and power until he became sole ruler on his father’s death four years later.

The reign of Henry I, like those of his predecessors, was marked by territorial struggles. Initially, he joined his brother Robert, with the support of their mother, in a revolt against his father (1025). His mother, however, supported Robert as heir to the old king, on whose death Henry was left to deal with his rebel sibling. In 1032, he placated his brother by giving him the duchy of Burgundy which his father had given him in 1016.

In an early strategic move, Henry came to the rescue of his very young nephew-in-law, the newly appointed Duke William of Normandy (who would go on to become William the Conqueror), to suppress a revolt by William’s vassals. In 1047, Henry secured the dukedom for William in their decisive victory over the vassals at the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes near Caen.

A few years later, when William married Matilda, the daughter of the count of Flanders, Henry feared William’s potential power. In 1054, and again in 1057, Henry went to war to try to conquer Normandy from William, but on both occasions he was defeated. Despite his efforts, Henry I’s twenty-nine-year reign saw feudal power in France reach its pinnacle.

Anne of Kiev  (1024–1075) was the queen consort of France as the wife of Henry I, and regent for her son Philip I.  Her parents were YAROSLAV I the Wise and princess Ingegerd OLOFSDOTTER  of Sweden.

Anna's mother was named St Anna, in part due to her founding of St Sophia Cathedral in Kiev

Ingegerd was later declared a saint, by the name of St. Anna, in Novgorod and Kiev. The reason was that she initiated the building of the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev as well as the local version, the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod, along with many good doings.

11th-century fresco of the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev representing the daughters of Ingegerd and Yaroslav I, with Anna probably being the youngest. Other daughters were Anastasia wife of Andrew I of Hungary, Elizabeth wife of Harald III of Norway, and Agatha wife of Edward the Exile.

After the death of his first wife, Matilda of Frisia, King Henry searched the courts of Europe for a suitable bride, but could not locate a princess who was not related to him within illegal degrees of kinship. At last he sent an embassy to distant Kiev, which returned with Anne (also called Agnes). Anne and Henry were married at the cathedral of Reims on 19 May 1051.

Anne of Kyiv

The new queen consort was not instantly attracted to her new realm. She wrote to her father that Francia was “a barbarous country where the houses are gloomy, the churches ugly and the customs revolting.”

Anne is credited with bringing the name Philip to Western Europe. She imported this Greek name (Philippos, from philos and hippos, meaning “the one that love horses”) from her Eastern Orthodox culture.

For six years after Henry’s death in 1060, she served as regent for Philip, who was only eight at the time. She was the first queen of France to serve as regent. Her co-regent was Count Baldwin V of Flanders. Anne was a literate woman, rare for the time, but there was some opposition to her as regent on the grounds that her mastery of French was less than fluent.

A year after the king’s death, Anne, acting as regent, took a passionate fancy for Count Ralph III of Valois, a man whose political ambition encouraged him to repudiate his wife to marry Anne in 1062. Accused of adultery, Ralph’s wife appealed to Pope Alexander II, who excommunicated the couple. The young king Philip forgave his mother, which was just as well, since he was to find himself in a very similar predicament in the 1090s. Ralph died in September 1074, at which time Anne returned to the French court. She died in 1075, was buried at Villiers Abbey, La-Ferte-Alais, Essonne and her obits were celebrated on 5 September.

30th Gen 1 – Isabel’s parents – HUGH I, Count of Vermandois. was born 1057 in Meulan, Ile-de-France, France. He died 18 Oct 1101 in Tarsus, Cilicia. Hugh married Adelaide de VERMANDOIS Countess of Vermandois on 1080 in Vermandois, Normandie, France

Hugh Magnus

Hugh was called Magnus or the Great,  was in his own right Count of Vermandois, but an ineffectual leader and soldier, great only in his boasting. Indeed, Steven Runciman is certain that his nickname Magnus (greater or elder), applied to him by William of Tyre, is a copyist’s error, and should be Minus (younger), referring to Hugh as younger brother of the King of France.

In early 1096 Hugh and his older brother Philip I began discussing the First Crusade after news of the Council of Clermont reached them in Paris. Although Philip could not participate, as he had been excommunicated, Hugh was said to have been influenced to join the Crusade after an eclipse of the moon on February 11, 1096.

That summer Hugh’s army left France for Italy, where they would cross the Adriatic Sea into territory of the Byzantine Empire, unlike the other Crusader armies who were travelling by land. On the way, many of the soldiers led by fellow Crusader Emicho joined Hugh’s army after Emicho was defeated by the Hungarians, whose land he had been pillaging. Hugh crossed the Adriatic from Bari in Southern Italy, but many of his ships were destroyed in a storm off the Byzantine port of Dyrrhachium.

Hugh and most of his army were rescued and escorted to Constantinople, where they arrived in November 1096. Prior to his arrival, Hugh sent an arrogant, insulting letter to Eastern Roman Emperor Alexius I Comnenus.

Alexius was already wary of the armies about to arrive, after the unruly mob led by Peter the Hermit had passed through earlier in the year. Alexius kept Hugh in custody in a monastery until Hugh swore an oath of vassalage to him.

After the Crusaders had successfully made their way across Seljuk territory and, in 1098, captured Antioch, Hugh was sent back to Constantinople to appeal for reinforcements from Alexius. Alexius was uninterested, however, and Hugh, instead of returning to Antioch to help plan the siege of Jerusalem, went back to France. There he was scorned for not having fulfilled his vow as a Crusader to complete a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and Pope Paschal II threatened to excommunicate him. He joined the minor Crusade of 1101, but was wounded in battle with the Turks in September, and died of his wounds in October in Tarsus.

30th Gen 2 – [William II's parents] –   William de WARENNE 1st Earl of Surrey, Seigneur de Varennes ( – 1088) was born 1055 in Bellencombe, Seine Inferieure, France. He died 24 Jun 1088 in Lewes, Sussex, England. m. Gundred of England ( – 1085)  m. 1074 in Bellencombe, Seine Inferieure, France.

William de Warenne

Gundred almost certainly born in Flanders, sister of Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester.  She is explicitly so called by Orderic Vitalis, as well as the chronicle of Hyde Abbey  She was also sister of Frederick of Oosterzele-Scheldewindeke, who was killed c.1070 by Hereward the Wake. Legends based in part on late Lewes priory cartulary suggested Gundred was a daughter of William the Conqueror by his spouse Matilda of Flanders, but this is not accepted by most modern historians. The early 19th-century writer Thomas Stapleton had argued she was a daughter of Matilda, born prior to her marriage to Duke William. This sparked a debate consisting of a series of published papers culminating with those of Edmond Chester Waters and Edward Augustus Freeman who argued the theories could not be supported.  Regardless, genealogical and historical sources continue to make the assertion that she was the Conqueror’s daughter.

William was a son of Rodulf de Warenne and is derived from the family of duchess Gunnor, wife of duke Richard I. He is one of the very few proven Companions of William the Conqueror known to have fought at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.  At the Domesday Survey he held extensive lands in thirteen counties including the rape of Lewes in Sussex.  He was created Earl of Surrey under William II ‘Rufus’

Battle of Hastings from Bayeux Tapestry

Sometime between 1078 and 1082, William and his wife Gundred traveled to Rome visiting monasteries along the way. In Burgundy they were unable to go any further due to a war between Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. They visited Cluny Abbey and were impressed with the monks and their dedication. William and Gundred decided to found a Clunic priory on their own lands in England. William restored buildings for an abbey. They sent to Hugh the abbot of Cluny for monks to come to England at their monastery. At first Hugh was reluctant but he finally sent several monks including Lazlo who was to be the first abbot. The house they founded was Lewes Priory dedicated to St. Pancras, the first Cluniac priory in England.

The Priory of St Pancras was the first Cluniac house in England and had one of the largest monastic churches in the country. It was set within an extensive walled and gated precinct laid out in a commanding location fronting the tidal shore-line at the head of the Ouse valley to the south of Lewes in the County of Sussex. The Priory is a nationally important historical site but an almost lost monument of mediaeval England, the buildings having been systematically demolished after the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII. Some parts of the lesser buildings survive above ground, fenced off within a public park. The Priory has been the subject of academic and archaeological study since the mid-nineteenth century.

Ruins of Lewes Priory once one of the largest in England

William was mortally wounded at the siege of Pevensey Castle and died 24 June 1088 at Lewes, Sussex, and was buried next to his wife Gundred at the Chapterhouse of Lewes Priory  See also the rebellion of 1088.

29th Gen – son William de WARENNE   2nd Earl of Surrey (though he was  more often referred to as Earl Warenne)   was born 1080 in Bellencombe, Seine Inferieure, France. He died 11 May 1138 in Lewes, Sussex, England. William married Isabel de VERMANDOIS Countess of Leicester on 1118 in Valois, Bretagne, France.

William 2nd Earl Warren and a Monk

In 1118 William finally acquired the royal-blooded bride he desired when he married Elizabeth de Vermandois.  She was a daughter of count Hugh of Vermandois, a granddaughter of Henry I, King of France, and was the widow of Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester.

His father, the 1st Earl, was one of the Conqueror’s most trusted and most rewarded barons who, at his death in 1088, was the 3rd or 4th richest magnate in England. In 1088 William II inherited his father’s lands in England and his Norman estates including the castles of Mortemer and Bellencombre in Haute-Normandy. But William II was not as disposed to serve the king as his father was. In January 1091, William assisted Hugh of Grantmesnil  in his defense of Courcy against the forces of Robert de Belleme and Duke Robert of Normandy. In 1093 he attempted to marry Matilda, daughter of king Malcolm III of Scotland. She instead married Henry I of England, and this may have been the cause of William’s great dislike of Henry I, which motivated him in the following years.

When Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (Eldest son of William I)  invaded England 1101 William joined him But when Curthose promptly surrendered to Henry I, William lost his English lands and titles and was exiled to Normandy. There he complained to Curthose that he had expended great effort on the duke’s behalf and in return lost all of his English possessions. Curthose’s return to England in 1103 was apparently made to convince his brother, the king, to restore William’s earldom. This was successful, though Curthose had to give up his 3000 mark annual pension he had received after the 1101 invasion, after which William’s lands and titles were restored to him.

To further insure William’s loyalty Henry considered marrying him to one of his many illegitimate daughters. Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury forbade the marriage based on the couple being related in the 4th generation on one side, and in the 6th generation on the other.  William was one of the commanders on Henry’s side (against Robert Curthose) at the Battle of Tinchebray in 1106. Afterwards, with his loyalty thus proven, he became more prominent in Henry’s court.

In 1110, Curthose’s son William Clito escaped along with Helias of Saint-Saens, and afterwards Warenne received the forfeited Saint-Saens lands, which were very near his own in upper Normandy. In this way king Henry further assured his loyalty, for the successful return of Clito would mean at the very least Warenne’s loss of this new territory.  He fought for Henry I at the Battle of Bremule in 1119.  William, the second Earl of Surrey was present at Henry’s deathbed in 1135.  After the king’s death disturbances broke out in Normandy and William was sent to guard Rouen and the Pays de Caux.

William II founded Castle Acre Priory, Norfolk, England

Castle Acre Priory, was founded in 1089 by William de Warenne the 2nd  Earl of Surrey.   Originally the priory was sited within the walls of Castle Acre Castle, but this proved too small and inconvenient for the monks, hence the priory was relocated to the present site in the castle grounds about one year later.

Elizabeth of Vermandois, or Elisabeth or Isabel de Vermandois ( –1131), was the third daughter of Hugh Magnus and Adelaide of Vermandois, and as such represented both the Capetian line of her paternal grandfather Henry I of France, and the Carolingian ancestry of her maternal grandfather Herbert IV of Vermandois.  As the wife of two Anglo-Norman magnates, Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester and William de WARRENE, 2nd Earl of Surrey,  she is the ancestress of hundreds of well-known families down to the present time.

In 1096, Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan reputed to be “the wisest man in his time between London and Jerusalem” insisted, in deference to the laws of the church, on marrying a very young Elizabeth, he being over fifty at the time.  In early 1096 Bishop Ivo, on hearing of the proposed marriage, wrote a letter banning the marriage and preventing its celebration on the grounds the two were related within prohibited degrees. In April of that year Elizabeth’s father count Hugh left on Crusade, his last act being to see his daughter married to count Robert. The crusader was able to convince Pope Urban to issue a dispensation for the marriage which then went forward.

Her husband was a nobleman of some significance in France, having inherited lands from his maternal uncle Henry, Count of Meulan, and had fought at the Battle of Hastings as a known companion of William the Conqueror.  He was rewarded with ninety manors in the counties Leichestershire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Wiltshire. The count of Meulan was one of Henry I’s “four wise councellors and was one of the king’s commanders at the battle of Tinchebray 28 Sep 1106. In 1107 Robert became Earl of Leicester.

Elizabeth, Countess of Meulan apparently tired of her aging husband at some point during the marriage. The historian Planche says (1874) that the Countess was seduced by or fell in love with a younger nobleman, William de Warenne for whom she left her husband Robert. William II de Warenne had sought a royal bride in 1093 in a failed attempt to wed Edith who later married Henry I, but obtained a bride of royal blood when he married Elizabeth in 1118, at the death of Earl Robert.

By her first husband,  Elizabeth had three sons (including twin elder sons) and five or six daughters.  By her second husband,William de Warenne, Elizabeth had three sons and two daughters.

29th Gen – son  Reginald de WARENNE Lord Wormegay  was born 1126 in Warwick, Warwickshire, England. He died 1179 in Wormegay, Norfolk, England. Reginald married Alice de WORMEGAY on 1147 in Wormegay, Norfolk, England.

Reginald's loyalty to the king and hostility to Thomas Becket when the archbishop landed in England in December 1170 earned him an unfavourable comparison to his crusader brother from a monastic writer.

Reginald de Warenne inherited his father’s property in upper Normandy, including the castles of Bellencombre and Mortemer.  He married Adeline, daughter of William, lord of Wormgay in Norfolk,  Reginald was one of the persecutors of Archbishop Thomas Beckett in 1170.

Early in his career he married Alice, daughter and heir of William of Wormegay, whose Norfolk barony came to her on his death, c.1166. Warenne was shown in the pipe rolls to have owed a fine of over £466 for the inheritance, a large sum of which was still owed at his death. His heir was his only son, William. His daughters’ names are not known with certainty, but they were very likely Gundreda, who married Peter de Valognes, William de Curcy, and Geoffrey Hose; Alice, who married Peter the Constable; Muriel, a nun at Carrow Priory; and perhaps Ada or Ela, who married Duncan, earl of Fife.

Warenne’s first public appearance was as early as 1138, as a witness to several of the charters of William (III) de Warenne. He became involved in the administration of some of the Norfolk estates of the honour of Warenne by 1146?7, and held lands of the honour in Sussex and Norfolk. He was certainly of age by 1147, when William (III) left him in charge of the Warenne lands upon his departure for the second crusade, from which he did not return, much to his brother’s sadness. After William’s death early in 1148 the Warenne inheritance went to his daughter Isabel, whom King Stephen promptly married to his son William, later count of Boulogne and Mortain. Warenne continued to administer the honour for the new earl and became his principal adviser. At this time he also began his long career of royal service, and witnessed several of Stephen’s charters.

Warenne made a smooth transition between the reigns of Stephen and Henry II. He was specifically mentioned in the treaty of Winchester (Dec 1153) as having been given the option of having the custody of the Warenne castles at Bellencombre and Mortemer in Normandy, and he witnessed Stephen’s notification of this treaty. He continued as a courtier; he witnessed charters under the new reign and also appeared with Henry II on several important occasions. He was present with the king at Battle Abbey in 1157, when the king judged a dispute between Archbishop Theobald and Abbot Silvester of St Augustine’s, Canterbury, and a case regarding the abbot of Battle (a brother of royal favourite Richard de Lucy). He attended the Council of Clarendon (1164) and was among those chosen to accompany Henry’s daughter Matilda to Saxony for her marriage in early 1168 to Duke Henry. His loyalty to the king and hostility to Thomas Becket when the archbishop landed in England in December 1170 earned him an unfavourable comparison to his crusader brother from a monastic writer. Warenne also worked as a government official during the reign and served as an itinerant justice in numerous southern and midlands counties (1168-76), as a baron of the exchequer (Michaelmas 1169), and as sheriff of Sussex (from Easter 1170 to Michaelmas 1176).

In addition to his public career Warenne also attended to the private business of religious benefaction with donations to the Warenne foundations of Lewes and Castle Acre priories, as well as gifts to St Mary Overie in Southwark, Carrow, Clerkenwell, and Binham priories, and a notification of a quitclaim to Battle Abbey. He retired from the worldly life to become a monk at the Warenne family foundation of Lewes Priory some time between Michaelmas 1178 and 1179, during which year he died.

28th Gen – son William de WARENNE was born 1150 in Wormegay, Norfolk, England. He died 1208 in Wormegay, Norfolk, England. William married Beatrix de PIERREPONT on 1177 in Wormegay, Norfolk, England

William was founder of the priory of Wormegay

Motte of Wormegay castle

Wormegay Castle is a motte and bailey earthwork, located next to the village of Wormegay in the English county of Norfolk.  The castle was probably built by Hermer de Ferrers after the Norman Conquest, and remained in the de Ferrers family until 1166. The motte is 5 metres high and 77 metres by 62 metres wide at the base.   The castle controlled the local causeway across the Fens. Wormegay formed the centre, or the caput, for an honour of feudal properties across East Anglia.

27th Gen – dau Beatrice de WARENNE was born 1178 in Wormegay, Norfolk, England. She died Dec 1214 in Barnstead, Surrey, England.  She first married Beatrice married Doun  Bardolf on 1198 in Wormegay, Norfolk, England. Beatrice married Hubert de BURGH on 1210 in Barnstead, Surrey, England.

Beatrice inherited the barony of Wormegay from her father.

Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent (c. 1160 – before 5 May 1243) was Earl of KentJusticiar of England and Ireland, and one of the most influential men in England during the reigns of John and Henry III.

Hubert de Burgh

De Burgh was born into a modest, minor landowning family from East Anglia and, therefore, had to work twice as hard to make a name for himself as opposed to his counterparts in the nobility.  He was the son of Walter de Burgh of Burgh Castle, Norfolk.    Hubert seems to have been a staunch supporter of John, youngest son of King Henry II, even before he became king, acting as chamberlain of the prince’s household. When John succeeded his brother, Richard I, to the throne in 1199, Hubert was upgraded to royal chamberlain, a position that involved being constantly within the presence of the king. Therefore, it is no surprise that his influence rapidly grew.

In his early adulthood Hubert vowed to rescue the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the holy land, so he set off for Jerusalem on the Third Crusade. Hubert is one of the possible de Burgh’s that received the coat of arms, it is said that Richard I dipped his finger in the blood of a slain Saracen king, put a red cross on the gold shield of de Burgh, and said “for your bravery this will be your crest”, and it is also said that he uttered the words “a cruce salus” which became the family motto.

In the early years of John’s reign de Burgh was greatly enriched by royal favour. While John was away in France pressing his claim to his territories there, Hubert was left in charge of the Welsh marches and was given several other important posts.  He received the honour of Corfe in 1199 and three important castles in the Welsh Marches in 1201 (Grosmont CastleSkenfrith Castle, and Llantilio Castle). He was also High Sheriff of Dorset and Somerset (1200), Berkshire (1202) and Herefordshire (1215), and castellan of Launceston and Wallingford castles.  He was also appointed Constable of Dover Castle, and also given charge of Falaise, in Normandy. He is cited as having been appointed a Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports  by 1215.

After John captured his nephew Arthur of Brittany, niece Eleanor and their allies in 1202, de Burgh was made their jailor.

There are several accounts of de Burgh’s actions as jailor, including complicity in Arthur’s death and an account that the king ordered de Burgh to blind Arthur, but that de Burgh refused. This account was used by Shakespeare in his play King John. The truth of these accounts has not been verified, however.

Prince Arthur and Hebert from King John

Hubert de Burgh first appears in King John as a representative of the city of Angiers (which is under siege) and a mediator between King John and Philip II of France, suggesting that the two men should make peace with a marriage between Louis the dauphin and John’s niece Blanche. It is unclear as to why Shakespeare would use De Burgh in a role as a French citizen (considering he was a full-blooded Englishman). Hubert next major role comes in the form of a hired hand by John. The king expects De Burgh to blind his nephew Arthur, therefore eliminating him as competition to his throne. Hubert reluctantly agrees to the task but, when the time comes, he cannot go through with it and tells Arthur he will help him escape. When the magnates rebel against John when they find out of Arthur’s supposed murder, De Burgh informs him that Arthur is still alive. Unfortunately, Arthur dies while attempting to escape captivity. During the subsequent rebellion involving the lords and Louis the dauphin, De Burgh remains completely loyal to King John and the rebellion is ultimately put down.

In any case de Burgh retained the king’s trust, and in 1203 Hubert had departed to France to aid with the wars and would remain there for several years..  He was given charge of the great castles at Falaise in Normandy and Chinon, in Touraine. The latter was a key to the defence of the Loire valley. After the fall of Falaise de Burgh held out while the rest of the English possessions fell to the French. Chinon was besieged for a year, and finally fell in June, 1205, Hubert being badly wounded while trying to evade capture.

During Hubert’s two years of captivity, his influence waned within England and many of his lands and positions were either given away or absorbed by the crown. Finally, in 1207, King John ransomed Hubert and quickly returned him to royal favor, helping him reacquire most of what he had lost during his captivity.   he acquired new and different lands and offices. These included the castles of Lafford and Sleaford, and the shrievalty of Lincolnshire (1209–1214). Probably, however, de Burgh spent most of his time in the English holdings in France, where he was seneschal of Poitou.

Over the following years, Hubert would continue to build his wealth, power and influence, acting as a sheriff and gaining experience as a justiciar, a task he would be remembered for. It is believed that Hubert remained completely loyal to John when the magnates rebelled and forced him to sign the Magna Carta in 1215..

The Magna Carta mentions him as one of those who advised the king to sign the charter, and he was one of the twenty-five sureties of its execution. John named him Chief Justiciar in June 1215.  and appointed him High Sheriff of Surrey (1215), High Sheriff of Herefordshire (1215), High Sheriff of Kent (1216–1222), and Governor of Canterbury Castle. Soon afterwards he was appointed Governor of the castles of Hereford, Norwich and Oxford.

De Burgh played a prominent role in the defence of England from the invasion of Louis of France, the son of Philippe II who later became Louis VIII. Louis’ first objective was to take Dover Castle, which was in de Burgh’s charge. The castle withstood a lengthy siege in the summer and autumn of 1216, and Louis withdrew. The next summer Louis could not continue without reinforcements from France. De Burgh gathered a small fleet which defeated a larger French force at the Battle of Dover and Battle of Sandwich, and ultimately led to the complete withdrawal of the French from England.

During the new minority regime, Hubert no doubt possessed a great amount of influence as justiciar, but with men such as William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke (regent to the underage king Henry III); the papal legate Pandulf; and Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, in the mix, de Burgh was most certainly kept in check. However, the aged Pembroke died (1219); Pandulf left for Rome (1221); and des Roches left for an extended crusade (1223).

These departures left de Burgh as the undisputed top man in Henry’s government and in effect, the acting regent.  During the next eight years or so, de Burgh acted as justiciar, military commander (taking part in the Welsh expeditions, with mixed results) and played a role in the keeping of the royal exchequer. He was appointed High Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk (1216–1225) and High Sheriff of Kent (1223–1226). De burgh accumulated much wealth as a result and was rewarded for his services even further by being created Earl of Kent (1227).

When Henry III came of age in 1227 de Burgh was made lord of Montgomery Castle in the Welsh Marches and Earl of Kent. He remained one of the most influential people at court. On 27 April 1228 he was named Justiciar for life.

Unfortunately, De Burgh’s success would be fairly short-lived. Bishop Des Roches returned to England (1231) and joined forces with his nephew Peter de Rivallis in an effort to bring down the justiciar, accusing him of a number of crimes, including appointing Italians to English posts. The king, at first, defended De Burgh, but soon enough, Hubert was stripped of his offices and most of his lands and forced to take sanctuary in various cathedrals.

Hubert de Burgh Taken From Sanctuary at Boisars

In 1233, De Burgh was forced to beg the king’s mercy, which he was given, and was restored to some of his lands. The following year, he was officially pardoned, but his days of power were clearly at an end. Hubert’s rivals made several more attempts to completely eliminate the justiciar, but De Burgh was able to live out the rest of his life quietly, dying in 1243 at the age of 82 or 83 in Banstead, Surrey, England and was buried at the church of the Black Friars in Holborn.

Over his long life, De Burgh had demonstrated the powers of royal favor and how they could make or break a man. In the end, though able to live out his life peacefully, Hubert remained broken.

26th Gen – son   Sir John de BURGH Knight was born 1211 in Barnstead, Surrey, England. He died 1275 in Walkern, Hertfordshire, England. John married Hawise de LANVALEY on 1232 in Walkern, Hertfordshire, England.

John inherited  his father Hubert de Burgh’s estates but not his earldom or other titles.

25th Gen – son Sir John de BURGH (Peerage) Baron Lanvallei of Walkern was born in  1233 in Walkern, Hertfordshire, England. He died Mar 1280 in Walkern, Hertfordshire, England. John married Cecily de BALIOL  dau. of  John de BALLIOL  on 1255 in Walkern, Hertfordshire, England.

Cecily’s brother King John I of Scotland, was a successful competitor for the Crown in 1292. He proved a weak king and was soon succeeded by two guardians you know from Braveheart fame

Portrait of John Balliol by William Robins

Cecily’s father John de Balliol ( – 1268) was a leading figure of Scottish and Anglo-Norman life of his time. Balliol College, in Oxford, is named after him.

Following a dispute with the Bishop of Durham, he agreed to provide funds for scholars studying at Oxford. Support for a house of students began in around 1263; further endowments after his death, supervised by Dervorguilla, resulted in the establishment of Balliol College.

Sir John lived at Wakerley, Northamptonshire, England

24th Gen – dau Lady (Hamyse) Hawise de BURGH was born 1259 in Walkern, Hertfordshire, England. She married Sir Robert IV de GRELLE Knight  (Baron Robert Greslei ) on 1278 in Manchester, Lancashire, England. He died in 1282.

23rd Gen- dau Lady Joan de GRELLE was born 1281 in Manchester, Lancashire, England. She died 21 Mar 1353 in Wickwar, Gloucestershire, England. Joan married Sir John la WARRE Lord la Warre on Nov 1294 in Manchester, Lancashire, England.

22nd Gen – dau  Lady Katherine la WARRE was born 1304 in Wickwar, Gloucestershire, England. She died 9 Aug 1361 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England. Katherine married Sir Warin le LATIMER Lord Latimer on 1326 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England.

21th Gen – dau Elizabeth le LATIMER was born 1335 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England. She married Sir Thomas GRIFFIN Knight on 1349 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England.  Elizabeth died before 1411

Sir Thomas Griffin, Knight (1323–1360) was a Knight of Weston Favell Manor and the Manor Of Braybrooke,Northamptonshire, England. Thomas Griffin was the son of John Griffin (1272-1350) and Elizabeth Favell (b. 1275) Married 1316.

Sir Thomas inherited his father-in-law’s title of Lord Braybrooke upon the latter’s death in 1349, the same year as his marriage

20th Gen – son Richard GRIFFIN was born 1355 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England. He married Anne CHAMBERLAIN on 1379 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England.

19th Gen – son  Nicholas GRIFFIN (1390 – 1436) m. Margaret de PILKINGTON on 1422 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England.

18th Gen – son Nicholas GRIFFIN Lord Latimer (1426-1482) m Catherine CURZON  on 1453 in Braybrooke, Northamptonshire, England

17th Gen – dau Catherine GRIFFIN (1465-1520) m John DIGBY on 1485 in Eye Kettleby, Leicestershire, England.

John son of Everard Digby Esq., sheriff of Rutlandshire in 1485,  also member of Parliament. Sir John was knighted at the Battle of Bosworth Field fighting for Henry VII [where he defeated Richard III].

Battle of Bosworth Field Reenactment

16th Gen – son William DIGBY (1495-1558) Ketteby Luffenham, Leicestershire, England m. 1518 in England to Rose PRESTWICH (1500 in Lubenham, Leicestershire, England – )

William lived in Stoke Dry Village, Rutland, England

15th Gen – son Simeon DIGBY (1520 – 1570) m Anne GREY 3 Jun 1539 in St. Pancras Soper Lane, London, England.

In March 1570, he was executed for High Treason in classic Braveheart fashion for his participation in the Rising of the North.

… Among the prisoners were Simon Digby of Aiskew, and John Fulthorpe of Iselbeck, Esquires, Robert Pennyman of Stokesley and Thomas Bishop of Pocklington, gentlemen, who were imprisoned in York Castle, and afterwards hanged, headed, and quartered; and, according to the barbarous custom of that age, their heads were set up on the four principal gates of the city.

Simon Digby was imprisoned in York Castle Clifford's Tower before he was executed

The Rising of the North of 1569, also called the Revolt of the Northern Earls or Northern Rebellion, was an unsuccessful attempt by Catholic nobles from Northern England to depose Queen Elizabeth I of England and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots.

14th Gen – son Everard DIGBY (1578 – 1606) m. Katherine STOCKBRIDGE de =de Vandershaff, Theobor [Theodore] de Newkirk in 1581 in London, England.

When I saw the name Everard Digby pop up on our tree, I thought we were related to a famous conspirator of Guy Fawkes fame. The plan of the Gunpowder Plot was to blow up Parliament with James I in it and install his nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, as the Catholic head of state.  A feature film about Everard Digby’s adventurous life is in development. Working Title – Digby: The Gunpowder Plotter’s Legacy.  Check out the filmmakers site here.

Unfortunate for fame, it appears that while rare today, Everard was a popular name in the Digby family. For example there was a 16th-century scholar also named, Everard Digby.  The conspirator Everard  was our Everard’s third cousin.

Sir Everard Digby The Conspirator

13th Gen – dau Elizabeth DIGBY (1584-1669) m. Enoch LYNDE 25 Oct 1614 in Church of St. John, Hackney, England.

Elizabeth was ”sent into Holland for Education.” Left an orphan, she went to her mother’s family to be brought up.

The second Chief Justice of Massachusetts Benjamin Lynde, in his Will (1776) gives to his wife his “best Tankard” and “half the Plate and Books, to be accounted six hundred pounds;” and “to my grandson Lynde Walter a Large flowered Silver Beaker that was my great Grandmother Elizabeth Digby’s, which piece of Plate is near two hundred years old,”

12th Gen dau Elizabeth (Mary) LYNDE (1625 London, England -1682, New London, CT) m. Capt. Mathew BECKWITH in 1641 in Hartford, Connecticut Colony.

Matthew’s property is today’s Rocky Neck State Park, East Lyme, CT the port from which his three ships were based was called Beckwith’s Cove.

11th Gen – son Joseph BECKWITH (1653 – 1707) m. Susannah TALLMAN 1676 Portsmouth, RI

Joseph Beckwith Jr. Headstone -- Old Stone Church Burial Ground East Lyme, New London County, Connecticut

10th Gen – dau Sarah BECKWITH (1677-1723) m. William MINER of Niantic, CT in 1693.  After Sarah, this line has ten sons in a row.

William Miner Headstone -- Old Stone Church Burial Ground East Lyme, New London, Connecticut

9th Gen – son Elihu MINER Sr. (1722 – 1807) m. Keziah WILLEY  21 Mar 1745 in East Haddam, CT.

River Scene, East Haddam CT

8th Gen – son  Elihu MINER Jr.  (1745 – 1821) m. Mrs. Mary DEAN about 1769 in Sharon, Litchfield, CT.

Apr – Jun 1778 – Elihu tendedg Sick at Yellow Springs Military Hospital. America’s first true military’ hospital constructed for that purpose was built at Yellow Springs, a popular health spa about 10 miles west of Valley Forge. About 300 sick men were accommodated in the large three-story wood structure.

7th Gen – son Selden MINER (1780 – 1842) m. Sally PEASE on 29 Nov 1810 in Hartford, Connecticut

Selden lived his whole live in East Haddam Connecticut

6th Gen – son Philo Sidney MINER Sr. (1811 – 1890) m. Sophia L. POLLEY

Philo was married in Congregational-Presbyterian Church in Kinsman built in 1831

5th Gen – son Philo Sidney MINER Jr. (1838 – 1911)  He married Calista Jane LATTA on 4 May 1869 in Cass County Nebraska

Philo helped pioneer Rock Bluff Nebraska in the 1850's, a river crossing of the Missouri south of Omaha and Plattsmouth. Bypassed by the railroad, Rock Bluff is now a ghost town and Rock Bluff School, Nebraska is all that is left

4th Gen – son Harvey Latta MINER  (1873 – 1958)  m. Cora Lorena McCAW in Oct 1895

Harvey and Cora Miner Wedding Picture

3rd Gen – Fay Everett MINER (1900 – 1982) m. Eleanor Coleman SHAW on 30 Aug 1923 in San Diego, California.

Everett and Eleanor

2nd Gen – Evereton Harvey Miner m. Nancy BLAIR

Everett and Nancy

1st Gen –  Mark Everett MINER m. Guadalupe VILLA VELAZQUEZ Osnaya in Sausalito, California.

Alex!

Sources:

The Magna Charta sureties, 1215: the barons named in the Magna Charta, 1215 …By Frederick Lewis Weis, Walter Lee Sheppard, William Ryland Beal

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-05/1116982257

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/scripts/data/database.cgi?file=Data&report=SingleArticle&ArticleID=0001694

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110224215945AAEFhe0

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/NorthernRebellion.htm

Warenne, Reginald de  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, By Victoria Chandler,  Oxford University Press, 2004

http://www.shakespeareandhistory.com/hubert-de-burgh.php

http://www.warrenfamilyhistory.com/Docs/Our%20Warrens%20in%20England.htm

Posted in Royal Ancestors, Storied | Tagged | 11 Comments

Everard Digby

Everard DIGBY (1578 – 1606) was Alex’s 12th Great Grandfather; one of 8,192 in this generation of the Miner line.

Since our Digby ancestors really were knights, their coat of arms belongs on each of their pages.

Everard Digby was born between 1540 and 1545 in Stoke Dry, Rutlandshire [the smallest county in England].  Alternatively, he was born 145 miles north in Bedale, North Riding  Yorkshire, England.   His parents were Simeon DIGBY and Anne GREY. He married Katherine STOCKBRIDGE de Vandershaff Theobor [Theodore] de Newkirk in 1581 in London, England.  Everard died 24 Jan 1592.

Stockbridge de Vandershaff, Theobor [Theodore] de Newkirk,

Everhard  may have been born in Stoke Dry Village

Rutland, England’s smallest county

Katherine Stockbridge de Vandershaff, Theobor [Theodore] de Newkirkwas born about 1560 in  the Netherlands.  Everard died in 1592 when  their daughter Elizabeth DIGBY was just eight years old.  Elizabeth was “sent into Holland for Education.” Left an orphan, she went to her mother’s family to be brought up.

The second Chief Justice of Massachusetts Benjamin Lynde, in his Will (1776) gives to his wife his “best Tankard” and “half the Plate and Books, to be accounted six hundred pounds;” and “to my grandson Lynde Walter a Large flowered Silver Beaker that was my great Grandmother Elizabeth Digby’s, which piece of Plate is near two hundred years old,” “and to my Grand daughter Mary Lynde Walter … my small silver Tankard.”

Children of Everard and Catherine:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Elizabeth DIGBY 1584 England Enoch LYNDE
25 Oct 1614 in Church of St. John, Hackney, now London, England
1669
London, England

When I saw the name Everard Digby pop up on our tree, I thought we were related to a famous conspirator of Guy Fawkes fame. The plan of the Gunpowder Plot was to blow up Parliament with James I in it and install his nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, as the Catholic head of state.  A feature film about Everard Digby’s adventurous life is in development. Working Title – Digby: The Gunpowder Plotter’s Legacy.  Check out the filmmakers site here.

Unfortunate for fame, it appears that while rare today, Everard was a popular name in the Digby family. For example there was a 16th-century scholar also named, Everard Digby.  The conspirator Everard  was our Everard’s third cousin.

Not to fear, we do have a Digby Catholic martyr in our tree,  Everard’s father Simeon DIGBY was executed for High Treason in 1570 as part of the Rising of the North.  His wife  Anne Grey also died 28 Mar 1570, but I haven’t found if she also met a violent end, but 600 supporters of Mary were executed, while many others fled into exile.   Everard would have been 25 – 30 years old in 1570, so he was an independent adult when his parents died.

Sir Everard Digby the Conspirator

Sir Everard Digby Portrait

The famous Sir Everard Digby was born about 1578.  His parents were Everard Digby and Maria Neale.  His grandparents were Kenelm Digby and Anne Cope.  In 1596, while still a teenager, he married Mary Mulshaw, a young heiress who brought with her Gayhurst House in Buckinghamshire. Sir Everard was executed 30 Jan 1606 in the Tower of London

Everard was a member of the group of provincial English Catholics who planned the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605. Although he was raised in a Protestant household, and married a Protestant, Digby and his wife were converted to Catholicism by the Jesuit priest John Gerard. In the autumn of 1605 he was part of a Catholic pilgrimage to the shrine of St Winefride’s Well in Holywell. About this time he met Robert Catesby, a religious fanatic who planned to blow up the House of Lords with gunpowder, killing James I. Catesby then planned to incite a popular revolt, during which a Catholic monarch would be restored to the English throne.

Occupy Wall Street Guy Fawkes Masks

The full extent of Digby’s knowledge of and involvement in the plot is unknown, but on Catesby’s behest Digby rented Coughton Court and prepared a “hunting party”, ready for the planned uprising. The plot failed however, and Digby joined the conspirators as they took flight through the Midlands, failing to garner support along their way. Digby left the other fugitives at Holbeche House in Staffordshire, and was soon captured and taken to the Tower of London.

Digby was tried on 27 January 1605. Despite an eloquent defence, he was found guilty of high treason, and three days later was hanged, drawn and quartered.

Gory Details

Digby was hanged, drawn and quartered early on Thursday 30 January. Throngs of spectators lined the streets as he was strapped to a wattled hurdle, and alongside Robert Wintour and John Grant was dragged by horse to the western end of Old St Paul’s Cathedralchurchyard. Thomas Bates was delivered in a similar fashion, but from the Gatehouse Prison. Armed guards interspersed along the route were there to defend against any possible rescue, but did not keep the miscreants’ families from witnessing the fate of the four men. Cold and grubby, Digby was the first of the four to face the executioner. He mounted the scaffold and addressed the audience, telling them that he knew he had broken the law, but that morally, and in the eyes of his religion, he had committed no offence. He asked for God’s forgiveness, and the country’s, and protested the Jesuits’ and Father Gerard’s innocence. He refused the attentions of a Protestant clergyman, speaking to himself in Latin, before saying goodbye to his friends.

Digby was then stripped of his clothing, except for his shirt. Murmuring “O Jesus, Jesus, save me and keep me”, he climbed the ladder and was hanged for a short period. The executioner cut the rope, and Digby fell back to the scaffold, wounding his forehead. Fully conscious, he was taken to the block and castrated, disembowelled, and quartered. Wintour, Grant and Bates followed. The remaining four conspirators suffered similar fates the following day, at the Old Palace Yard in Westminster.

Guy Fawkes Night,   is an annual commemoration observed on 5 November, primarily in England. Its history begins with the events of 5 Nov 1605, when Guy Fawkes, a member of the Gunpowder Plot, was arrested while guarding explosives the plotters had placed beneath the House of Lords. Celebrating the fact that King James I had survived the attempt on his life, people lit bonfires around London, and months later the introduction of the Observance of 5th November Act enforced an annual public day of thanksgiving for the plot’s failure.

Guy Fawkes Night Bonfire

Within a few decades Gunpowder Treason Day, as it was known, became the predominant English state commemoration, but as it carried strong religious overtones it also became a focus for anti-Catholic sentimentPuritans delivered sermons regarding the perceived dangers of popery, while during increasingly raucous celebrations common folk burnt effigies of popular hate-figures, such as the pope.  Eventually, the violence was dealt with, and by the 20th century Guy Fawkes Day had become an enjoyable social commemoration, although lacking much of its original focus. The present-day Guy Fawkes Night is usually celebrated at large organized events, centered around a bonfire and extravagant firework displays.

Everard Digby The Conspirator Ancestry – 3rd Cousin of our Everard

Parents — Everard Digby was born about 1540 – Tilton, Leicestershire, England. He married Maria Neale. Everard died 1592 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England

Grandparents — Sir Kenelm Digby Sheriff of Rutland was born 1512 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. He died 1590 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Kenelm married Anne Cope on 1538 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Anne Cope was born 1521 in Hanwell, Oxfordshire, England.

Effigies of Kenelme Digby (d. 1590) and his wife St. Andrew’s Church Stoke Dry, Rutland

Detail of carving from the tomb of Kenelme Digby, showing some of his 11 children.

Great Grandparents — Sir Everard Digby Knight was born 1470 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. He died 4 1540 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Everard married Margery Heydon on 1509 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Margery Heydon was born 1493 in Baconsthorpe, Norfolk, England.

2nd Great Grandparents — [our ancestor] Everard DIGBY Esq Esquire was born 1440 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. He died Feb 1509 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Everard married Jacquetta ELLIS on 1463 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Jacquetta Ellis was born 1445 in Combe Raleigh, Devon, England. She died 1483 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England.

John Digby first Earl of Bristol

Everard’s grandson Simon Lynde  was only twelve when his father died and was brought up by his widowed mother, who was in communication with her wealthy and influential Digby relatives. He was presented by John Digby first Earl of Bristol to King Charles I, to offer his allegiance.

John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol

John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol  was an English diplomat and a moderate royalist during the English Civil War.

John  was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge.   King James I sent Digby to Madrid as his ambassador to Spain during the early 1610s, and Digby was a leading figure in the unsuccessful Spanish Match, the effort to marry Prince Charles to the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain. Digby was made the scapegoat, recalled and ordered to reside on his estates. Charles after his accession offered Digby his favour if he would admit his fault : Digby, always a stubborn and hot-tempered man, refused. Charles, infuriated, impeached him and sent him to the Tower of London; Digby, undaunted, made counter-charges against the Duke of Buckingham, the prime favourite. His trial never proceeded, although he remained in the Tower until 1628, and the affair seriously damaged the King’s reputation as a man of honor.

The murder of the Duke of Buckingham caused Digby to reconsider his opposition to the King: like the Earl of Strafford and others he was alarmed at Parliament’s increasing radicalism. He offered his services to Charles and was reconciled with him. Charles, however, was slow to trust those who had ever opposed him and Digby had little influence through the 1630s.

As the political crisis of the early 1640s mounted, Digby emerged as a trusted and moderate royal adviser, along with his son George, Lord Digby. At the Council of Peers held at York in September 1640 ,the King showed an unprecedented willingness to listen to Bristol’s criticism of his policy, and agreed to his advice that a Parliament must be summoned. 1641 saw a complete reconciliation between the two men: Bristol with the Earl of Bedford became leader of the moderate Royalists in the House of Lords, working to achieve a compromise with John Pym, and save the Earl of Strafford’s life. After the collapse of the attempt at compromise Bristol was seen as a “hardline” royalist: as such Parliament imprisoned him after the outbreak of the Civil War, although he was later allowed to join the King at Oxford. After the King’s defeat he moved to Paris and died there in 1653.

Clarendon, who knew and liked Bristol, gave a sketch of him:

“Of a grave aspect, of a presence which drew respect, and a very handsome man who by the extraordinary favour of King James to his person was Ambassador to Spain before he was 30. Though he was a man of great parts and a wise man in Council he was passionate and supercilious and was too voluminous in discourse so that he was not considered there with much respect.”

A modern historian praised him as the greatest servant of the English Crown of his generation.

Ancestry of John Digby first Earl of Bristol – How was he related to Simon Lynde?

John Digby, was born Feb 1580   His parents were  Sir George Digby of Coleshill, Warwickshire and Abigail Henningham, daughter of Sir Arthur Henningham.  He married Beatrice Walcott.  John died 16 Jan 1653.

Parents –  Sir George Digby was born 6 Nov 1549 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England. He died 1587 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England. George married Abigail Heveningham on 1571 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England.

His parents were John Digby and Anne Throckmorton.  He maried Abigail Henningham.  Sir George died 2 Apr 1586. When George died young, the heir was his brother Sir Robert Digby. This Sir Robert made a judicious marriage with Lettice, grand-daughter of Gerald, Earl of Kildare and Baron Offaly, and herself in 1620 created Baroness Offaly, who, as the large memorial on the north wall of the sanctuary at Coleshill points out, was ‘Heir General to that Antient Family of Earls of Kildare in Ireland’, and brought to the Digby family the vast estates of the Earls of Kildare. Though Sir Robert and his children lie buried at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin, memorials to them were erected at Coleshill as well, a practice that was also followed in the case of Kildare, Lord Digby.

Grandparents –  John  Digby Esq was born  1525 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England. .  He married Anne Throckmorton of Coughton on 1548 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England. Anne died 21 Dec 1553. of Coleshill, Warwick. Also said to have married Catherine Vaux, daughter of Nicholas, Lord Vaux.  John died  15 Nov 1550.

Great Grandparents – Reginald Digby was born 1497 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England. He married 4 Anne Danvers on 1518 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England. Reginald died in 1549 and is buried at Coleshill. Anne Danvers was born 1500 in Thatcham, Berkshire, England.

2nd Great Grandparents – Simon Digby was born 1466 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. He married Alice Waleys on 1492 in Coleshill, Warwickshire, England. Simon died in 1520 Coleshill, Warwickshire, England and is buried in a tomb, made in his lifetime, bearing superb effigies of himself and his wife, in the sanctuary of Coleshill Church. Alice Walleys was born 1472 in Haddon, Devon, England.

3rd Great Grandparents — [our ancestor] Everard DIGBY Esq Esquire was born 1440 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. He died Feb 1509 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Everard married Jacquetta ELLIS on 1463 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England. Jacquetta ELLIS was born 1445 in Combe Raleigh, Devon, England. She died 1483 in Stoke Dry, Rutland, England.

Sources:

http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=13313950

http://coplepast.blogspot.com/2010/11/grey-launcelyn-digby-lynde-locke.html

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg3008.htm#73809

http://www.digbygpl.com/index.html

http://chelmsleywoodpastandpresent.lefora.com/2010/06/29/chelmsley-wood-lay-ion-the-manor-of-coleshill/

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg3007.htm#73800

Posted in 14th Generation, Artistic Representation, Line - Miner, Wikipedia Famous | 5 Comments

Enoch Lynde

Enoch LYNDE (1590 – 1636) was  Alex’s 11th Great Grandfather; one of 4,096 in this generation of the Miner line.

Enoch Lynde’s Coat of Arms,  though “nowhere recorded in England, are almost identical with those granted in Holland to the noble family of Van der Linden, as recorded in the College of Arms at the Hague, a branch of which family is said to have emigrated to England in the sixteenth century.

Enoch Lynde was born 1590 in England or Holland.  His parents names are not known.  His grandparents given in the old Bible, were Nathan LYNDE and Elizabeth [__?___]. He married  Elizabeth DIGBY 25 Oct 1614 in Church of St. John, Hackney, England. Enoch died 23 Apr 1636 in London, England.

The registry-record of the marriage of Enoch Lynde and Elizabeth Digby, discovered by the late Col. Chester of London, stands thus :

“Enocke Lyndlye and Elizabeth Dygbye.”

Elizabeth Digby was born 1584 in England.  Her parents were Everard DIGBY and Katherine STOCKBRIDGE De NEWKIRK.  Elizabeth died 1669 in London, England.

Children of Enoch and Elizabeth:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Matthew Lynde 1620
London, England
2. James Lynde 23 Jun 1622
London, England
3 Mar 1623
St. Andrew, Hubbard
London, England
3. Simon Lynde bapt.
Jun 1624
St. Andrews
London, England
Hannah Newgate
22 Feb 1653 in Boston, Mass.
 22 Nov  to1687
Boston, Suffolk, Mass
4. Elizabeth LYNDE 1625
London, England
Matthew BECKWITH
1641 in Hartford, Connecticut Colony.
.
Samuel Buckland
1682 in Lyme, New London, Connecticut at age 57.
5. James Lynde bapt.
28 Jul 1630
St. Andrew,
Hubbard
London, England

Enoch Lynde, was a shipping merchant in the Netherlands engaged in foreign trade and he was also connected with the postal service between England and Holland.  He was fluent in Dutch and may have been of Dutch extraction.

“On the 7th of October 1636, in the Commissary Court of the Bishop of London, letters to administer the estate of Enoch Lyne, 10 late of the parish of St. Andrew, Hubbard, in the City of London, deceased, were granted to his relict Elizabeth.”

Enoch died, according to a record in his own Bible (above referred to), April 23, 1636.

An old business-paper of 1651, published among Suffolk Deeds of Massachusetts, fixes the place of his residence in London

Edward Bendall of Boston thereby acknowledging himself indebted to ” Symon Lynd of Lond.,” for a certain sum to be paid ” at the dwelling-house of Mrs Elizabeth Lynd in Buttolph lane in London.”

Today, Botolph lane  is just a two minute walk to the Monument to the Great Fire of London. It stands at the junction of Monument Street and Fish Street Hill, 202 ft (62 m) tall and 202 ft (62 m) from the place where the Great Fire started on 2 September 1666.   Its height marks its distance from the site in Pudding Lane of the shop of Thomas Farynor, the king’s baker, where the Great Fire began.

Undoubtedly Elizabeth had lived there in her husband’s life-time, as it was near London Bridge and the shipping; and the  Church of St. Andrew, Hubbard.  By 6 Sep 1666 the city lay in ruins, 87 churches having been destroyed.   In 1670 a Rebuilding Act was passed and a committee set up under the stewardship of Sir Christopher Wren to decide which would be rebuilt Fifty-one were chosen, but St Andrew Hubbard was one of the unlucky minority never to be rebuilt.   The church was situated close to Philpot Lane. in the area known as Little Eastcheap and took its name from Hubert, a mediaeval benefactor. Its parish records are among the most detailed in the UK  and have been extensively researched, for example they tell us it was a thriving but rat-prone living.

From Family Histories and Genealogies by Edward Elbridge Salisbury, 1892

This is from a pedigree written from the knowledge of Chief Justice Benjamin Lynde, youngest son of Simon Lynde. Elizabeth Digby was his grandmother. “Eliz. Digby, whose Parents dying while she was young, she was sent into Holland for Education, and there Instructed in the Protes Religion, her relations being generally Roman Catholics. She was a near Relation of Jn Digby 1st Earl Bristol, who Introduced her son Simon Lynde to Kiss King Charles hand: her arms see in margent. She dyed a widow 1669.”

Enoch had a contract with the English Government to carry the mails to the Low Countries and other foreign parts. He “subsequently acted as an agent in some capacity for the Government, during the war with France that broke out in 1627.” The following letter of his, copied from an original holograph in the Record Office of London, is worth preserving :

“Right Wo pp :

” My seruis rememb. — these are to lett you knowe that Mr : Mason’ was with me about the Inventary of the ffreinch pries brought into the port of Shoram, which Inventary of the salle of the goodes is not yett maid parffett, 7 because some thinges are not sould, and monneys are scarse, but w tb all speed it shal be ended. I am to goe to Shoram one Mundaye, and then I will hasten this bussenes ; and when all is done I will repayer to you with all the perticulers. I haue cast al thinges vpp att
random, and I make account ther wil be about ffive hundreth and ffowr skore poundes or there aboutes, whereof the Sauers clames the moyete ; but your Wo pp : knowe best what you have to doe with them, soe not having els I rest wishing yo r Wo pp : all and as much hapines as he whoe remaynes

Your ffreinde to command,

Enoch Lynd.”
” Buttelan, this
4 th of January, 1627.”
Endorsed : ” To the Right Wo pp :
Nicolas, Secretary vnto my Lord
Admirall the Duke of Buckingham.”

Of the ancestry of Enoch Lynde we have no positive knowledge, beyond the fact, given in the old Bible, that he was the grandson of Nathan and Elizabeth Linde, and the evidence of gentle descent afforded by the arms which he bore on his seal. Simon Lynde, son of Enoch, having been only twelve years old when his father died, would naturally lose much of the family-history, while the long widowhood of Elizabeth (Digby) Lynde accounts for more of the family-history of the Digbys being transmitted. The Lynde arms on Enoch Lynde’s seal were (tinctures not represented) : Gu. on a chief Or three mallets of the first.

An impression of this seal (proved to have been Enoch Lynde’s by its impaling Digby arms, in right of his wife as an heiress) was affixed by his son Simon to a Deed of 1682, and also to his Will dated July 21, 1685 ; and a grandson of Simon Lynde, in a letter to Lord Henry Digby, which we shall mention again, farther on, speaks of a silver inkcase, in his possession, as bearing “the arms of Digby impaled with those of our family.” A facsimile of this seal, from the original Will of Simon Lynde, for which we are indebted to Dr. F. E. Oliver of Boston, will be found on the sheet of our Lynde Pedigree. Of another seal used by Simon Lynde, which displays Lynde arms alone, Mr. Samuel H. Russell of Boston, in a recent letter (Oct. 28, 1889), says:

” Mr. Mitchell, our seal-engraver, says the cutting of this silver die of the Lynde arms is one of the best specimens, of Dutch or German work of the 17th century, better than could have been done in England.”

Probably the seal of Enoch Lynde was of the same workmanship.

Our Lynde arms, though “nowhere recorded in England … are almost identical with those granted in Holland to the noble family of Van der Linden, as recorded in the College of Arms at the Hague, a branch of which family is said to have emigrated to England in the sixteenth century.”  The arms of the Barons Van der Linden d’ Hoogvorst, of Dutch descent, now of Belgium, are : Git. on a chief Arg. three mallets Sa., with a crest differing from that of our Lyndes. In reply to a letter of ours giving a copy of the arms of Enoch Lynde, the following communications were received :

” The Hague, 29 Feb. 1880.”
” Dear Sir,

” I have the pleasure to inform you that I have discovered the name of the family bearing the coat of arms of which you have given me a copy. That name is Van der Linden. . . . The arms are Gules on a chief Argent three mallets Sable. Descendants of this family, the Barons van der Linden d’ Hoogvorst, are still living in Belgium. . . . The arms of the Stockbridges” are: Argent on a chevron Azure three bezants
Or. . . .

” P. A. Van der Velde,
” Secretary of the College of Arms and Nobility of the Netherlands.”
[To the United States Minister at the Hague, Hon. James Birney.]

“The arras of the family of Lynde, of which a drawing has been given to me, are identically the same as those of the Barons d’ Hoogvorst — Gules a chief Arg. charged with three mallets Sable. The crest differs. . . .”

[Translation of a report made by Mons. P. Delsaux, Archivist and Genealogist of Brussels.]

Before this correspondence had elicited the facts Col. Chester, consulting English records, had decided that our Lynde arms are a foreign coat. We have already noted circumstances which indicate that our Lyndes were of foreign extraction, perhaps Dutch ; the finding of their arms in Holland, though with a difference in tinctures, confirms this supposition. The difference in tinctures between the arms of Van der Linden and those of our Lyndes may be due either to an original variation, determined by heraldic authority, or to a loss, in our family, of the tradition of the true colors. As has been stated, the seal of Enoch Lynde did not indicate tinctures. If, as facts seem to show, Enoch Lynde was either born in the Low Countries or of Dutch descent, his business-associations with them would be easily accounted for. It was perhaps there, or on his ships going to or returning from England, that he met Elizabeth Digby, who had spent her youth, and perhaps her life till her marriage, with her mother’s relatives in Holland. We may believe that Dutch was spoken in their family, and that in that way their son Simon acquired the intimate knowledge of the language which caused his being chosen by Mr. Delanay to attend to his business in Holland. It has been customary, in all generations, for foreigners, on becoming resident in England, to translate or otherwise change their names into English forms. A natural and easy gradation of change in the name of this family would be from Linden to Linde, Lind and Line, or Lynde, Lynd and Lyne. The grandparents of Enoch Lynde, as we have seen, were called Nathan and Elizabeth Linde ; and examples of the other forms are to be met with.”

” There had been, in England, very ancient heraldic families spelling their names De la Lynde, Lynde, Lynne, Lyne, etc., whose coats of arms are entirely different from that of our family. The Lynde family of England was one of distinction whose name a Van der Linden need not be unwilling to bear.

In the beginning of our investigations, before we had ascertained the nationality of Enoch Lynde’s ancestry, Col. Chester wrote : “I have often found undoubted Lynnes spelling their name Lin,/, Linde, Lynd, and Lynde, and as often undoubted Lytnles spelling theirs Lynne, Line, Lyne, and even Lines and Lynes.”

Robert Edwin Lyne, a contributor to “Notes and Queries” (VI. Series, iv. 391), writes us : “I have a copy in my possession of an original letter written by General Monck, recommending Enoch son of Matthew Lyne for admission to the Charter House [School], London, as follows :

” ‘ Honoured Sir : There being one Mr. Matthew Line, who hath bin longe in the Service of the Commonwealth as Chyurgeon att Sea, and being a very deserving person, I make itt my Request to you that you will afford your assistance for the admitting of his sonne Enoch Line into the Charter-house, which I shall take as a Respect done your very humble serv’, George Monck.”

“St. James’s, 11 Ap. 1660.
For the ho bIe John Thurloe Esq., Secretary of State, these att Whitehall.’ “

Simon Lynde, in his Will, leaves a legacy to this nephew in the following words :

” Item, I doe give and bequeath unto my Kinsman Enoch Lynde sonne of my Deceased Brother Mathew Lynde Twenty-five Pounds, to be paid within twelve months after my decease ; and acquitte him alsoe of what he is Justly accountable to me for, a Cargoe I intrusted him with Considerable, Provided he accept the said Bequeste thankfully, and give a full and Generall Discharge According to the
Discretion of my Executors.”

There was, also, another son of Enoch and Elizabeth (Digby) Lynde, named Enoch born, probably, between 1624 and 1630, of whom we know no more.

Cousins

Thomas Lynde Bio (1594-1671)

Children

1 Matthew Lynde

From Family Histories and Genealogies by Edward Elbridge Salisbury, 1892

The exceptional imperfection of the existing Registers of the parish of St. Andrew, Hubbard — there being no record whatever for the period between 1599 and 1705, “except two or three leaves containing entries for the year 1621 and 1622,” as Col. Chester has informed us, limits our knowledge of the children of Enoch Lynde, from that source, to the scanty items already stated. But the Will of his son Simon refers to ” my Deceased Brother Mathew Lynde.”

This Matthew Lynde the “Calendar of State Papers” enables us to trace as a Surgeon in the British Navy as early as 1653; the family- pedigree, drawn up by the second Chief Justice Lynde, places his birth “about 1620.”

Of the year 1653, December 3, among letters and papers relating to the Royal Navy, is an “order for 50/. to Mat. Lynde, late Surgeon of the Rainbow, on his petition for expense of medicines for prisoners, planters and mariners taken by Sir John Ayscue in his expedition to Sally and the Barbadoes.”

Of February 20, 1654, in the same collection, is a communication from Generals Blake and Penn to the Commissioner of the Navy of the following substance :

” Having appointed Math. Linde surgeon of the Sovereign, one of the summer guard, have sent him up for his chest and medicaments, and desire that his bills may be made out for his imprest and free gift, and the money paid to him.”

Of the date of March 25, 1662-63, 1S a memorandum as follows :

” Matthew Lyne’s appointment as surgeon for the Kent came after the place had been filled up, on order of the Duke of York, by Wm. Wye. Begs that Wye may be retained, and Mr. Lyne shall be entered on one of the other ships which are to be fitted up.”

2. James Lynde

“James 1 ® son of Enoch and Elizabeth Lind,” was baptized June 23, 1622, “in the parish-church of St. Andrew, Hubbard, in the City of London ;” who was buried there, on the third day of the following March, under the name of “James son of Enoch Linde.”

3. Simon Lynde

Simon Lynde  was only twelve when his father died and was brought up by his widowed mother, who was in communication with her wealthy and influential Digby relatives. He was presented by John Digby first Earl of Bristol to King Charles I, to offer his allegiance.

John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol (1580-1653)

John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol  was an English diplomat and a moderate royalist during the English Civil War.

John Digby was the son of Sir George Digby of Coleshill, Warwickshire and Abigail, daughter of Sir Arthur Henningham. He was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge King James I sent Digby to Madrid as his ambassador to Spain during the early 1610s, and Digby was a leading figure in the unsuccessful Spanish Match, the effort to marry Prince Charles to the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain. Digby was made the scapegoat, recalled and ordered to reside on his estates. Charles after his accession offered Digby his favour if he would admit his fault : Digby, always a stubborn and hot-tempered man, refused. Charles, infuriated, impeached him and sent him to the Tower of London; Digby, undaunted, made counter-charges against the Duke of Buckingham, the prime favourite. His trial never proceeded, although he remained in the Tower until 1628, and the affair seriously damaged the King’s reputation as a man of honor.

The murder of the Duke of Buckingham caused Digby to reconsider his opposition to the King: like the Earl of Strafford and others he was alarmed at Parliament’s increasing radicalism. He offered his services to Charles and was reconciled with him. Charles, however, was slow to trust those who had ever opposed him and Digby had little influence through the 1630s.

As the political crisis of the early 1640s mounted, Digby emerged as a trusted and moderate royal adviser, along with his son George, Lord Digby. At the Council of Peers held at York in September 1640 ,the King showed an unprecedented willingness to listen to Bristol’s criticism of his policy, and agreed to his advice that a Parliament must be summoned. 1641 saw a complete reconciliation between the two men: Bristol with the Earl of Bedford became leader of the moderate Royalists in the House of Lords, working to achieve a compromise with John Pym, and save the Earl of Strafford’s life. After the collapse of the attempt at compromise Bristol was seen as a “hardline” royalist: as such Parliament imprisoned him after the outbreak of the Civil War, although he was later allowed to join the King at Oxford. After the King’s defeat he moved to Paris and died there in 1653.

Clarendon, who knew and liked Bristol, gave a sketch of him:

“Of a grave aspect, of a presence which drew respect, and a very handsome man who by the extraordinary favour of King James to his person was Ambassador to Spain before he was 30. Though he was a man of great parts and a wise man in Council he was passionate and supercilious and was too voluminous in discourse so that he was not considered there with much respect.”

A modern historian praised him as the greatest servant of the English Crown of his generation.

Back to Simon Lynde

Simon’s wife Hannah Newgate was born 28 Jun 1635 in Boston, Mass. Her parents were John Newgate and Ann Hunt. Hannah died 20 Dec 1684 in Boston, Mass

Simon  came to New England in 1650, and,  in February 1652, after a brief visit to the old country in the interval, married Hannah daughter of Mr. John Newdigate, who died December 20, 1684.

Simon Lynde made his home, on his marriage, in the house of his father-in-law Newdigate, to which he made a large and handsome addition, “a fair large structure.” This house stood on the corner of Hanover street and Wing’s Lane, now Elm street; and there his son Samuel so resided with his family.”

Simon Lynde Bio

From Family Histories and Genealogies by Edward Elbridge Salisbury, 1892

SIMON “third son,” baptized (as his grandson the second Chief Justice of the name says) at St. Andrew, Holborn (properly Hubbard, see above), in June 1624. ” He was for a time apprenticed to a Mr. Delanay, a merchant of London afterwards he was sent by him to Holland for business-purposes, and ” Keept his books in ye Dutch toungue.” That Simon Lynde treasured Mr. Delanay’s memory, through life, with affectionate respect, is shown by the following item in his Will :

” I give and bequeath to Mr. Benjamin Delanay, my Honoured Master, six pounds in money, to be paid within on yeare after my Decease.”

It seems very probable that Mr. Lynde named his son Benjamin in honor of this friend of his youth who had trained him for his business-life.

He came to New England in 1650, and, in February 1652, after a brief visit to the old country in the interval (see above, where he is named as “of Lond.” in 1651), married Hannah daughter of Mr. John Newdigate, who died December 20, 1684. Simon Lynde made his home, on his marriage, in the house of his father-in-law Newdigate, to which he made a large and handsome addition, ” a fair large Structure.” This house stood on the corner of Hanover street and Wing’s Lane, now Elm street (in the aristocratic quarter of colonial Boston) ; and there his son Samuel also resided with his family, affixing to the building the Lynde arms. It was the home of Newdigates and Lyndes for at least four generations In the list of soldiers in King Philip’s War, of Capt. Oliver’s Company, appears the name of ” Mr. Simon Lynde.” He was a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery.

” During the more than thirty years of his life in the colony . . .” he “was a person of prominence, and acquired large landed possessions in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. In 1686 he was appointed, under President Dudley, one of the Assistant Justices of the Court of Pleas and Sessions [the first colonial Court established after the vacating of the colonial charter], and, in the following year, one of the Justices Assistant of the Superior Court, with Samuel Shrimpton and Charles Lidgett. He died on the 22d of November 1687, possessed of a large estate . . .

From Washburn’s Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts, pp 85-87

“During the more than thirty years of his life in the colony —” he “was a person of prominence, and acquired large landed possessions in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. In 1686 he was appointed, under President Dudley, one of the Assistant Justices of the Court of Pleas and Sessions (the first colonial Court established after the vacating of the colonial charter), and, in the following year, one of the Justices Assistant of the Superior Court, with Samuel Shrimpton and Charles Lidgett. He died on the 22d of November 1687, possessed of a large estate.”

From page vi of Lynde Diaries

“During the more than thirty years of his life in the colony, (Simon) was a person of prominence, and acquired large landed possessions in Massachusetts, Connecticut,, and Rhode Island. In 1686 he was appointed, under President dudley, one of the Assistant Justices of the Court of Pleas and Sessions, and, in the following year, one of the Justices Assistnat of the Superior Court.

“With his training and transatlantic connection, Simon prospered. In 1666 he was one of a group of men who signed a petition in favor of acknowledging ‘the King’s Authority.’ In fact there was quite a large and respectable party in Massachusetts which had grown upset with the local government, best described as a theocracy. — The Massachusetts Bay Colony was not know for its religious tolerance. People who held non-conforming opinions wer whipped, fined, imprisoned, banished – unreasonable persecuted. Simon Lynde was brave enough to let some Anabaptists meet in one of his houses in 1674. Perhaps his Dutch ancestry or experiences in his business made him more lenient. — Simon owned three of the 26 origianl lots of Freetown (later set off to become part of Fall River) and gave them to his first son Samuel.”

From the bible of Simon Lynde which was given to him by his mother, Elizabeth Digby Lynde. This entry was made by one of his children.

“My hon Father Simon Lynde Esq was born June 1624; was contracted to my hon mother, then Hannah Newdigate, in Feb 1651, and was married to her unpon his return from England Feb 1652; and dyed 22 Nov 1687, aged 63 years.”

From Family Histories and Genealogies by Edward Elbridge Salisbury, 1892

This is from a pedigree written from the knowledge of Chief Justice Benjamin Lynde, youngest son of Simon Lynde.
“Simon Lynde Esq: born in Lond June 1624 Serv’d to a merch in Lond, Mr. Delanay, after went into Holland and Keept his books in Y Dutch tongue; he came to Bost: in N. Eng. 1650, married feb. 1652, and lived a merch in Boston; 1686 he was made a Justice for County of Suffolk; dyed 22 Nov. 1687, aged 63 yrs. 5 m.”

Simon’s son Benjamin Lynde  was the first Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court serving from 1729 to 1745 and again from 1769 to 1771.

Enoch’s grandson Benjamin Lynde was Chief Justice of Massachusetts Supreme Court

4. Elizabeth LYNDE (See Matthew BECKWITH‘s page)

Sources:

http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=18108007&st=1

Family histories and genealogies. A series of genealogical and biographical monographs on the families of MacCurdy, Mitchell, Lord, Lynde, Digby, Newdigate, Hoo, Willoughby, Griswold, Wolcott, Pitkin, Ogden, Johnson, Diodati, Lee and Marvin, and notes on the families of Buchanan, Parmelee, Boardman, Lay, Locke, Cole, De Wolf, Drake, Bond and Swayne, Dunbar and Clarke, and a notice of Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite. With twenty-nine pedigree-charts and two charts of combined descents (1892) By Salisbury, Edward Elbridge, 1814-1901; Salisbury, Evelyn (McCurdy) 1823-

Posted in 13th Generation, Immigrant Coat of Arms, Line - Miner, Storied | 3 Comments

John Rogers – Rogerene Founder

John Rogers (1653 – 1707), the founder of the Rogerene Quakers spent a cummulative fifteen years in jail for his beliefs, among them celebrating the Sabbath on Saturday and working on Sunday.  He wasn’t our direct ancestor, but his love story with Elizabeth Griswold is unique.  His first wife Elizabeth was forced by her family to divorce him.  There were no grounds for divorce based on religious differences, so its legality is questionable and Rogers believed he was still married to Elizabeth and remained faithful to her for twenty-five years until he married his housemaid.  He still claimed his first marriage was valid and the Bible permitted him two wives,  In 1705, thirty-five years after his marriage, he tried to get Elizabeth back, leading him into a unique conflict with our Matthew BECKWITH family.

John Rogers was born 1 Dec 1648 in Stratford, Fairfield, CT. His parents were James Rogers and Elizabeth Rowland. He first married Elizabeth Griswold  17 Oct 1670.  She was granted a divorce from her husband, John Rogers, 12 Oct 1676.

He next married 6 Jun 1699 in New London, CT to his housemaid, Mary Ransford. This marriage was not sanctioned by the church and John did not renounce his marriage to Elizabeth. His son John Rogers Jr was very angry. John presented himself with Mary before the June 6 session of the County Court in New London, where they take each other, in the sight and hearing of all, as husband and wife; he, furthermore, stating his reason for marrying her outside the form prescribed by the colony, to which form he declares he attaches no value, since it was not sufficient to secure his first wife to him, although no valid cause was presented for the annulment of that approved ceremony. To fully make this a well-authenticated marriage, he gallantly escorts Mary to the house of Governor Fitz-John Winthrop and informs him that he has taken this young woman for his wife. The governor politely wishes him much joy.

Finally, he married 4 Jul 1714 in Block Island, Newport, Rhode Island to Sarah Cole. John died 17 Oct 1721 in New London, New London, CT.

Elizabeth Griswold was born in Milford, CT. Her parents were Matthew Griswold and Anna Wolcott. She first married John Rogers 17 Oct 1670. She was granted a divorce from her husband, John Rogers, 12 Oct 1676. She next married Peter Pratt (1647 in Plymouth, Mass – 24 Mar 1688 in Lyme, New London, CT). Finally she married Matthew Beckwith Jr., son of our ancestor Matthew BECKWITH

Mary Ransford was born 2 Jul 1659 in Boston, Suffolk, Mass. Her parents were Jonathan Rainsford and Mary Sunderland. Mary died in Jul 1714 in Massachesetts

Sarah Cole was born 1693 in Milford, CT.

Children of John Rogers and Elizabeth Griswold:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Elizabeth Rogers 8 Nov 1671
New London, New London, CT
Stephen Prentice
1689 in East Lyme, New London, CT
30 Apr 1737
New London, New London, CT
2. John Rogers Jr. 20 Mar 1674Lyme, CT Bathsheba Smith
2 Jan 1700 in New London, CT
.
Elizabeth Dodge
28 Jan 1723 New London, New London, CT
18 Jun 1753
Mamacock Farm, New London, CT

.
Child of Elizabeth Griswold and Peter Pratt

Name Born Married Departed
1. Peter Pratt Jr. 1680
Lyme, CT
Mehitable Watrous
7 Sep 1709 in Hartford, CT
22 Nov 1730
Hartford, CT

.

Child of Elizabeth Griswold and Matthew Beckwith Jr

Name Born Married Departed
1. Griswold Beckwith. 1691 in Lyme, CT Eliakim Cooley
14 Sep 1706 Springfield, Hampden, Mass
26 Nov 1754
Springfield, Hampden, Mass

.

Child of John Rogers and Mary Ransford

Jon and Mary were not married in the church. Although Mary is fined 40s. by the County Court in June, for the birth of her child, it is not declared illegitimate by the usual form, the authorities being nonplussed by the fact she and John Rogers so publicly took each other as husband and wife. She is not called upon to declare who is the child’s father, nor is the latter charged with its maintenance, as in cases of illegitimacy. Evidently, John Rogers did not expect any court action, in the case of so public a ceremony. He declines to pay a fine so disgraceful to his wife and child, and appeals to the Superior Court. The court decides that, since the fine was not accompanied by other due forms of law, it is invalid, but refers the matter to the future consideration of the County Court, which results in no further action in regard to this child.

In September, 1702, the County Court have a good opportunity to exercise the “after consideration” recommended by the Superior Court in 1700, which they improve by dealing with Mary, after the birth of her second child, exactly as they are accustomed to deal with an unmarried woman. Her presentment is in exactly the same wording, a part of which calls upon her to declare under oath, before the court, the name of the father of her child. To prevent their carrying out this form, John Rogers is there in court, with his six-months-old girl baby in his arms, to save it from this disgrace. He has given Mary directions how to proceed, in order to supplement his plan of breaking up the intended procedure. If she refuse to take the oath and to declare John Rogers to be the father of her child, the court will be baffied.

Being ordered to take the oath, she is silent, as her husband has enjoined, while he declares to the court that this her child in his arms is his own. The court knows, as well as the man before them, that his first marriage has not been annulled for any legal cause; that he had reason to refuse a repetition of the ceremony. But while those who make and administer laws may be allowed to ignore them with impunity, lesser people must abide by them; least of all must this man escape, who has imperilled the ecclesiasticism of the land. They threaten Mary with stripes, if she coninue her refusal to take the oath. She looks from the judge to the man who stands, so earnest and anxious, with the babe in his arms, bidding her not to take the oath, declaring that, if she obey him, he will shield her from harm. She knows he will do all that he can to protect her; but she has seen marks of the stripes upon his own back; she knows how he has sat for hours in the stocks, and been held for weary years in prison. Can he rescue her from the stripes?

He sees her yielding and pleads with her, pleads that she will save their child from this dishonor. The court sternly repeats the threat. Again he promises to defend her, in case she will obey him; but declares that, if she yield, branding his child as base-born, herself as common, and himself a villain, he needs must hesitate, hereafter, to own her as his wife.

She sees the court will not be trifled with. She knows that John Rogers uses no idle words. Yet will it not be safer to brave his displeasure than that of the court? She takes the oath, and declares John Rogers to be the father of her child. The cloud grows dark upon the father’s face. He folds his branded child against his heart and goes his way. All this he risked to hold his first love first, in seeming as in truth; has risked and lost.

The court proceeds as usual in cases of illegitimacy, pronouncing John Rogers the father of the child, and ordering that he pay 2s. 6d. per week towards its maintenance, until it is four years of age. Mary is allowed until the end of the following month to pay the usual fine of 40s., in case of non-payment of which she shall receive ten stripes on the naked body. In the meantime, she is to be detained in prison. Will John Rogers own his child to be illegitimate by paying this fine? By no means.

To now take Mary back (even if so allowed by the authorities – Miss Caulkins states that Mary was threatened by this court with heavy penalties if she returned to John Rogers. Although the evidence of this has escaped our notice, Miss Caulkins doubtless came across such evidence.)  would be to brand any other children in the same manner. To marry her by the prescribed form would be to acknowledge these two children to be illegitimate. Yet there is one thing that can be done, and must be done speedily. Mary must be rescued from the prison and thus saved from the lash. There are but two in all this region who will risk an attempt like that. They are John Rogers and his son. Mary escapes to Block Island.

After a safe period has elapsed, Mary is returned from Block Island to New London. Her children are placed with her, somewhere in the town, to give the more effect to her Petition to the General Court, which is presented early in May. It is a long and pathetic document (still to be seen in ” Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in the State Library, at Hartford), narrating the manner of her marriage to John Rogers; his taking her home and “ordering his servants to be conformable and obedient” to her; the trouble they had, “especially myself,” on account of the displeasure of John, Jr., at the marriage; a description of her presentment at court for her second child; her compliance with the court’s importunity, although her husband stood there “with it in his arms,” and how the result had made their children “base-born,” by which her “husband” says he is “grossly abused;” since “he took me in his heart and declared me so to be his wife before the world, and so owned by all the neighbors.” She beseeches that the sentence of the court be annulled; so that, “we may live together as husband and wife lawful and orderly,” “that the blessing of God be upon us, and your Honor, for making peace and reconciliation between us, may have an everlasting reward.” Dated in “New London, May I2, 1703.”

The court takes no notice of this appeal. Mary is returned to Block Island and the children to Mamacock. Proof will appear, however, that she is not forgotten nor neglected. Even after her marriage to another man, and years after this hopeless separation, she will say nothing but good of him who first called her his wife and acted faithfully towards her a husband’s part.

Name Born Married Departed
1. Gersham Rogers 24 Feb 1700
New London, CT
Sarah Wheeler
8 Apr 1725 in New London, New London, CT
1770
2. Child Rogers Bef. Sep 1702
New London, CT

[Miss. Caulkins states that, some months before this period, John Rogers "made an almost insane attempt" to regain his former wife Elizabeth, wife of Matthew Beckwith. This statement is founded upon a writ against John Rogers on complaint of Matthew Beckwith (Jan. 1702-3), accusing John Rogers of laying hands on Elizabeth, declaring her to be his wife and that he would have her in spite of Matthew Beckwith. The historian should ever look below the mere face of things. For more than twenty-five years, John Rogers has known that Elizabeth, married or unmarried, would not return to him, pledged as he was to his chosen cause. He is, at this particular date, not yet fully separated from Mary, but holding himself ready to take her back, in case a petition to the General Court should by any possibility result favorably. This and another complaint of Matthew Beckwith  the latter in June, 1703  - to the effect that he was "afraid of his life of John Rogers" indicate some dramatic meeting between John Rogers and "Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold," in the presence of Matthew Beckwith, the incidents attendant upon which have displeased the latter and led him to resolve that John Rogers shall be publicly punished for assuming to express any ownership in his, Matthew Beckwith's, wife.

This "afraid of my life" is a common expression, and was especially so formerly, by way of emphasis. Matthew Beckwith could not have been actually afraid of his life in regard to a man whose principles did not allow of the slightest show of physical force in dealing with an opponent. Although the court record says that John Rogers "used threatening words against Matthew Beckwith," on presentation by Matthew Beckwith's complaint, this does not prove any intention of physical injury.

Any meeting between John Rogers and Elizabeth Griswold could not fail of being dramatic. What exact circumstances were here involved is unknown; what attitude was taken by the woman, when these two men were at the same time in her presence, it is impossible to determine. But it is in no way derogatory to the character of John Rogers, that in meeting this wife of his youth, he gives striking proof of his undying affection. Ignoring her marriage to the man before him, forgetful, for the time being, even of Mary, blind to all save the woman he loves above all, he lays his hand upon Elizabeth, and says she is, and shall be, his. Under such circumstances, Matthew Beckwith takes his revenge in legal proceedings. When summoned before the court, John Rogers defends his right to say that Matthew Beckwith's wife  so-called  is still his own, knowing full well the court will fine him for contempt, which process follows (County Court Record).]

John Rogers is fifty-five years of age at this date, and Matthew Beckwith sixty-six. Elizabeth is about fifty.

In 1724, John Rogers founded a religious sect in New London, Connecticut,  known as the Rogerenes (also known as the Rogerens Quakers or Rogerines) Rogers was imprisoned and spent some years there. He was influenced by the Seventh Day Baptists and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and opposed the Established Puritan church. Rogerenes initially held to a Seventh Day (Saturday) Sabbath, but over the years began to regard each day as equally holy. Their disdain for Sunday worship often brought them into sharp conflict with their neighbors. Increasingly they adopted a Pacifist stance, including war tax resistance, which further brought them the ridicule of the larger community.

Some of the Rogerenes left Connecticut and migrated to New Jersey settling in parts of present-day Morris County. One such group settled in what is presently the Landing section of Roxbury Township, New Jersey near Lake Rogerine, then known as Mountain Pond in about 1700.

Lake Rogerene New Jersey

Another smaller group of Rogerenes in about 1734 settled on the eastern side of Schooley’s Mountain near present-day Hackettstown, New Jersey

Rogerene worship services continued through the early 20th Century in Connecticut.

Elizabeth Griswold Rogers Pratt Griswold had children by each husband. In 1703, Rogers made a rash attempt to regain his divorced wife, then married to Beckwith; Beckwith complained that he laid hands on her, declaring she was his wife, threatened Beckwith that he would have her in spite of him , all of which Rogers confessed to be true. But he defended on the plea that she was really his wife. In June, 1703, Mathew Beckwith, Sr appeared in court and swore that he was in fear of his life of him.

The Rogerenes: Part II, History of the Rogerenes. Boston: Stanhope Press, 1904. by Anna B. Williams

In 1637 John’s father, James Rogers,  was a soldier from Saybrook in the Pequot war. He is next at Stratford, where he acquires considerable real estate and marries Elizabeth, daughter of Samuel Rowland, a landed proprietor of that place, who eventually leaves a valuable estate to his grandson, Samuel Rogers, and presumably other property to his daughter, who seems to have been an only child. A few years later, James Rogers appears at Milford. His wife joins the Congregational church there in 1645, and he himself joins this church in 1652.

He has evidently been a baker on a large scale for some time previous to 1655, at which date complaint is made to the General Court in regard to a quantity of biscuit furnished by him, which was exported to Virginia and the Barbadoes, upon which occasion he states that the flour furnished by the miller for this bread was not properly ground. The miller substantially admits that he did not at that time understand the correct manner of grinding.

In the course of ten years, Milford proves too small a port for the operations of this enterprising and energetic man, whose business includes supplies to seamen and troops. Governor Winthrop is holding out inducements for him to settle at New London. In 1656 he is empowered by the General Court to sell his warehouse at Milford, with his other property, provided said building be used only as a warehouse. He now begins to purchase valuable lands and houses at New London, and so continues for many years, frequently adding some choice house-lot, Indian clearing, meadow-land, pasture or woodland to his possessions. In 1659 he sells to Francis Hall, an attorney of Fairfield, “all” his “lands, commons and houses in Stratford, Milford and New Haven.” – (History of Stratford. )

At New London, in addition to his large baking business, he has charge of the town mill, by lease from Governor Winthrop, at the head of an inlet called Winthrop’s Cove and forming Winthrop’s Neck, which neck comprises the home lot of the governor. That James Rogers may build his house near the mill,1 the Governor conveys to him a piece of his own land adjoining, upon which Mr. Rogers builds a stone dwelling. He also builds a stone bakery by the cove and has a wharf at this point.

The long Main street of the town takes a sharp turn around the head of the cove, past the mill and to the house of the Governor, the latter standing on the east side of the cove, within a stone’s throw of the mill.

The native forest is all around, broken here and there by a patch of pasture or planting ground. One of the main roads leading into the neighboring country runs southerly five miles to the Great Neck, a large, level tract of land bordering Long Island Sound. Another principal country road runs northerly from the mill, rises a long hill, and, after the first two or three miles, is scarcely more than an Indian trail, extending five miles to Mohegan, the headquarters of Uncas and his tribe. Upon this road are occasional glimpses, through the trees, of the “Great River” (later the Thames).

James Rogers is soon not only the principal business man of this port, but, next to the Governor, the richest man in the colony. His property in the colony much exceeds that of the Governor. He is prominent in town and church affairs, he and his wife having joined the New London church; also frequently an assistant at the Superior Court and deputy at the General Court. His children are receiving a superior education for the time, as becomes their father’s means and station. Life and activity are all about these growing youth, at the bakery, at the mill, at the wharf. Many are the social comings and goings, not only to and from the Governor’s house, just beside them, but to and from their own house. His extensive business dealings and his attendance at court have brought James Rogers in contact with intelligent and prosperous men all over the colony, among whom he is a peer. His education is good, if not superior, for the time. He numbers among his personal friends some of the principal planters in this colony and neighboring colonies.

1666.

In 1666 James Rogers retires from active business. His sons Samuel and Joseph are capable young men past their majority. Samuel is well fitted to take charge of the bakery. Joseph inclines to the life of a country gentleman. John, an active youth of eighteen, is the scholar of the family. He writes his father’s deeds and other business documents, which indicates some knowledge of the law. Besides being sons of a rich man, these are exceptionally capable young men. That there is no stain upon their reputations is indicated by the favor with which they are regarded by certain parents of marriageable daughters. In this year occurs the marriage of Samuel to the daughter of Thomas Stanton, who is a prominent man in the colony and interpreter between the General Court and the Indians. The parents of each make a handsome settlement upon the young people, James Rogers giving his son the stone dwelling-house and the bakery. This young man has recently sold the farm received from his grandfather, Samuel Rowland. Having also grants from the town and lands from his father (to say nothing of gifts from Owaneco), together with a flourishing business, Samuel Rogers is a rich man at an early age.

Somewhat before the marriage of Samuel, his father, in anticipation of this event, established himself upon the Great Neck, on a farm bought in 1660, of a prominent settler named Obadiah Bruen. This is one of the old Indian planting grounds so valuable in these forest days. Yet James Rogers does not reside long on the beautiful bank of Robin Hood’s Bay (now Jordan Cove), for in this same year his son Joseph, not yet twenty-one years of age, receives this place, “the farm where I now dwell” and also “all my other lands on the Great Neck,” as a gift from his father. All the “other lands” being valuable, this is a large settlement. (It appears to mark the year of Joseph’s marriage, although the exact date and also the name of the bride are unknown. The residence of James Rogers for the next few years is uncertain; it is not unlikely that he takes up his abode in one of his houses in town, or possibly at the Mamacock farm, on the Mohegan road and the “Great River,” which place was formerly granted by the town to the Rev. Mr. Blinman, and, upon the latter’s removal from New London, was purchased by Mr. Rogers.)

1670.

Matthew Griswold is a leading member in the church of Saybrook. He resides close by the Sound, at Lyme, on a broad sweep of low-lying meadows called Blackhall, which is but a small portion of his landed estate. His wife is a daughter of Henry Wolcott, one of the founders and principal men of Windsor, and a prominent man in the colony. Matthew Griswold is, like James Rogers, a frequent assistant and deputy. There are many proofs that he and his wife are persons of much family pride, and not without good reasons for the same. When, in 1670, they enter into an agreement with James Rogers for the marriage of their daughter Elizabeth to his son John, it is doubtless with the knowledge that this is a very promising young man, as well as the son of a wealthy and generous father.

How far from the mind of the young lover, when, on the night before the happy day when he is to call Elizabeth his bride, he pens the writing which is to give her the Mamacock farm, recently presented to him by his father, is a thought of anything that can part them until death itself. To this writing he adds: “I do here farther engage not to carry her out of the colony of Connecticut.” This sentence goes to prove the great fondness of the parents for this daughter, her own loving desire to live always near them, and the ready compliance of the young lover with their wishes. He marries her at Blackhall, October 17, and takes her to the beautiful river farm which upon that day becomes her own. He does not take her to the farmhouse built by Mr. Blinman, but to a new and commodious dwelling, close by the Mohegan road, whose front room is 20 by 20, and whose big fireplaces, in every room, below and above, will rob the wintry blasts of their terror . The marriage settlement upon the young couple, by James Rogers and Matthew Griswold, includes provisions, furniture, horses, sheep, and kine.

1673.

In 1673, James Rogers, Jr., is of age. No large gift of land to this young man is recorded; for which reason it seems probable that his principal portion in the lifetime of his father is the good ship of which he is master. His ability to navigate and command a foreign bound vessel at such an age is sufficient guarantee of the skill and enterprise of this youth. In 1674, the young shipmaster has (according to tradition in that branch of the family  – Caulkins) among his passengers to Connecticut a family emigrating from Ireland, one member of which is an attractive young woman twenty years of age. Before the vessel touches port, the young captain and his fair passenger are betrothed, and the marriage takes place soon after.

1674.

Although John Rogers resides at Mamacock farm, he is by no means wholly occupied in the care of that place; a young man of his means has capable servants. As for years past, he is actively interested in business, both for his father and himself. At Newport, in the year 1674, he meets with members of the little Sabbatarian church of that place, recently started by a few devout and earnest students of the Bible, who having, some years before, perceived that certain customs of the Congregational churches have no precedent or authority in Scripture, resolved to follow these customs no longer, but to be guided solely by the example and precepts of Christ and his apostles. In attempting to carry out this resolve, they renounced and denounced sprinkling and infant baptism and attached themselves to the First Baptist Church of Newport. About 1665, they were led, by the teachings of Stephen Mumford, a Sabbatarian from England, to discern in the first day Sabbath the authority of man and not of God. Under this persuasion, the little company came out of the First Baptist Church, of Newport, and formed the Sabbatarian Church of that place. Mr. Thomas Hiscox is pastor of this little church, and Mr. Samuel Hubbard and his wife (formerly among the founders of the First Congregational Church of Springfield, Mass.) are among its chief members. During this year, under the preaching and teachings of this church, John Rogers is converted.

Hitherto this young man and his wife Elizabeth have been members of the regular church, as ordinary membership is accounted, and their two children have been baptized in that church, at New London. If children of professed Christians, baptized in childhood, lead an outwardly moral life, attend the stated worship and otherwise conform to the various church usages, this is sufficient to constitute them, as young men and young women, members in good and regular standing. The daughter of Elder Matthew Griswold has been as ignorant of the work of regeneration as has been the son of James Rogers.

The conversion of John Rogers was directly preceded by one of those sudden and powerful convictions of sin so frequently exemplified in all ages of the Christian church, and so well agreeing with Scriptural statements regarding the new birth. Although leading a prominently active business life, in a seaport town, from early youth, and thus thrown among all classes of men and subjected to many temptations, this young man has given no outward sign of any lack of entire probity. Whatever his lapses from exact virtue, they have occasioned him no serious thought, until, by the power of this conversion, he perceives himself a sinner. Under this deep conviction the memory of a certain youthful error weighs heavily upon his conscience

He has at this time one confidant, his loving, sympathetic and deeply interested young wife, who cordially welcomes the new light from Newport. In the candid fervor of his soul, he tells her all, even the worst he knows of himself, and that he feels in his heart that, by God’s free grace, through the purifying blood of Jesus Christ, even his greatest sin is washed away and forgiven.

Does this young woman turn, with horror and aversion, from the portrayal of this young man’s secret sin? By no means. she is not only filled with sympathy for his deep sorrow and contrition, but rejoices with him in his change of heart and quickened conscience. More than this, understanding that even one as pure as herself may be thus convicted of sin and thus forgiven and reborn, she joins with him in prayer that such may be her experience also. They study the New Testament together, and she finds, as he has said, that there is here no mention of a change from a seventh to a first day Sabbath, and no apparent warrant for infant baptism, but the contrary; the command being first to believe and then to be baptized. Other things they find quite contrary to the Congregational way. In her ardor, she joins with him to openly declare these errors in the prevailing belief and customs.

Little is the wonder that to Elder Matthew Griswold and his wife the news that their daughter and her husband are openly condemning the usages of the powerful church of which they, and all their relatives, are such prominent members, comes like a thunderbolt. Their own daughter is condemning even the grand Puritan Sabbath and proposes to work hereafter upon that sacred day and to worship upon Saturday. They find that her husband has led Elizabeth into this madness. They accuse and upbraid him, they reason and plead with him. But all in vain. He declares to them his full conviction that this is the call and enlightenment of the Lord himself. Moreover, was it not the leading resolve of the first Puritans to be guided and ruled only by the Word of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ? Did they not warn their followers to maintain a jealous watchfulness against any belief, decree or form of worship not founded upon the Scriptures? Did they not urge each to search these Scriptures for himself? He has searched these Scriptures, and Elizabeth with him, and they have found a most astonishing difference between the precepts and example of Christ and the practice and teachings of the Congregational church.

Elder Matthew Griswold is ready with counter arguments on the Presbyterian side. But “the main instrument” by which Elizabeth is restored to her former church allegiance is her mother, the daughter of Henry Wolcott. This lady is sister of Simon Wolcott, who is considered one of the handsomest, most accomplished and most attractive gentlemen of his day. Although she may have similar charms and be a mother whose judgment a daughter would highly respect, yet she is evidently one of the last from whom could be expected any deviation, in belief or practice, from the teachings and customs of her father’s house. That her daughter has been led to adopt the notions of these erratic Baptists is, to her mind, a disgrace unspeakable. She soon succeeds in convincing Elizabeth that this is no influence of the Holy Spirit, as declared by John Rogers, but a device of the Evil One himself. Under such powerful counter representations, on the part of her relatives and acquaintances, as well as by later consideration of the social disgrace attendant upon her singular course, Elizabeth is finally led to publicly recant her recently avowed belief, despite the pleadings of her husband. At the same time, she passionately beseeches him to recant also, declaring that unless he will renounce the evil spirit by which he has been led, she cannot continue to live with him. He, fully persuaded that he has been influenced by the very Spirit of God, declares that he cannot disobey the divine voice within his soul.

One sad day, after such a scene as imagination can well picture, this young wife prepares herself, her little girl of two years and her baby boy, for the journey to Blackhall, with the friends who have come to accompany her. Even as she rides away, hope must be hers that, after the happy home is left desolate, her husband will yield to her entreaties. Not so with him as he sees depart the light and joy of Mamacock, aye, Mamacock itself which he has given her. He drinks the very dregs of this cup without recoil. He parts with wife and children and lands, for His name’s sake. Well he knows in his heart, that for him can be no turning. And what can he now expect of the Griswolds?

Although his own home is deserted and he will no more go cheerily to Blackhall, there is still a place where dear faces light at his coming. It is his father’s house. Here are appreciative listeners to the story of his recent experiences and convictions; father and mother, brothers and sisters, are for his sake reading the Bible anew. They find exact Scripture warrant for his sudden, deep conviction of sin and for his certainty that God has heard his fervent prayers, forgiven his sins and bestowed upon him a new heart. They find no Scripture warrant for a Sabbath upon the first day of the week, nor for baptism of other than believers, nor for a specially learned and aristocratic ministry. They, moreover, see no authority for the use of civil power to compel persons to religious observances, and such as were unknown to the early church, and no good excuse for the inculcating of doctrines and practices contrary to the teachings of Christ and his apostles. Shortly, James, the young shipmaster, has an experience similar to that of his brother, as has also an Indian by the name of Japhet. This Indian is an intelligent and esteemed servant in the family of James Rogers, Sr.

At this time, the home of James Rogers is upon the Great Neck. By some business agreement, his son Joseph resigned to his father, in 1670, the lands upon this Neck which had been given him in 1666. In this year (1674), his father reconfirms to him the property bought of Obadiah Bruen, by Robin Hood’s Bay. The younger children, Jonathan and Elizabeth, are still at home with their parents. Bathsheba and her family are living near, on the Great Neck, as are also Captain James and his family.

Although John may still lay some claim to Mamacock farm, while awaiting legal action on the part of the Griswolds, it can be no home to him in these days of bitter bereavement. Warm hearts welcome him to his father’s house, by the wide blue Sound, and here he takes up his abode. Never a man of his temperament but loved the sea and the wind, the sun and the storm, the field and the wood. All of these are here. Here, too, is his “boat,” evidently as much a part of the man as his horse. No man but has a horse for these primitive distances, and in this family will be none but the best of steeds and boats in plenty.

Near the close of this eventful year, Mr. James Rogers sends for Mr. John Crandall to visit at his house. Mr. Crandall has, for some time, been elder of the Baptist church at Westerly, an offshoot of the Baptist church of Newport. He has recently gone over with his flock to the Sabbatarian church of Newport. If the subject of possible persecution in Connecticut is brought up, who can better inspire the new converts with courage for such an ordeal than he who has been imprisoned and whipped in Boston for daring to avow his disbelief in infant baptism and his adherence to the primitive mode by immersion? The conference is so satisfactory, that Mr Crandall baptizes John Rogers, his brother James, and the servant Japhet.  (Letter of Mr. Hubbard.)

News of the baptism of these young men into the Anabaptist faith by Mr. Crandall, at their father’s house, increases the comment and excitement already started in the town. The minister, Mr. Simon Bradstreet, expresses a hope that the church will “take a course” with the Rogers family. The Congregational churches at large are greatly alarmed at this startling innovation in Connecticut. The tidings travel fast to Blackhall, dispelling any lingering hope that John Rogers may repent of his erratic course. Immediately after this occurrence, his wife, by the aid of her friends, takes steps towards securing a divorce and the guardianship of her children. From her present standpoint, her feelings and action are simply human, even, in a sense, womanly. He who is to suffer will be the last to upbraid her, his blame will be for those who won her from his view to theirs, from the simple word of Scripture to the iron dictates of popular ecclesiasticism. If John Rogers and his friends know anything as yet of the plot on the part of the Griswolds to make the very depth of his repentance for an error of his unregenerate youth an instrument for his utter disgrace and bereavement, their minds are not absorbed at this time with matters of such worldly moment.

1675.

In March, 1675, James Rogers, Sr., and his family send for Elder Hiscox, Mr. Samuel Hubbard and his son Clarke, of the Sabbatarian church of Newport, to visit them. Before the completion of this visit, Jonathan Rogers (twenty years of age) is baptized. Following this baptism, John, James, Japhet and Jonathan are received as members of the Sabbatarian church of Newport, by prayer and laying on of hands. (Letter of Mr. Hubbard.)

This consummation of John’s resolves brings matters to a hasty issue on the part of the Griswolds, in lines already planned. There is no law by which a divorce can be granted on account of difference in religious views. In some way this young man’s character must be impugned, and so seriously as to afford plausible grounds for divorcement. How fortunate that, at the time of his conversion, he made so entire a confidant of his wife. Fortunate, also, that his confession was a blot that may easily be darkened, with no hindrance to swearing to the blot. At this time, the young woman’s excited imagination can easily magnify that which did not appear so serious in the calm and loving days at Mamacock, even as with tear-wet eyes he told the sorrowful story of his contrition. Thus are laid before the judges of the General Court, representations to the effect that this is no fit man to be the husband of Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold. The judges, lawmakers and magistrates of Connecticut belong to the Congregational order  – the only élite and powerful circle of the time; this, taken in connection with the unfavorable light in which the  Rogers are now regarded in such quarters, is greatly to the Griswold advantage.

Yet, despite aversion and alarm on the part of the ruling dignitaries regarding the new departure and the highly colored petition that has been presented to the court by the daughter of Matthew Griswold, there is such evident proof that the petitioner is indulging an intensity of bitterness bordering upon hatred towards the man who has refused, even for her sake, to conform to popular belief and usages, that the judges hesitate to take her testimony, even under oath. Moreover, the only serious charge in this document rests solely upon the alleged declaration of John Rogers against himself, in a private conference with his wife. This charge, however, being represented in the character of a crime  (under the early laws), is sufficient for his arrest. Very soon after his reception into the Sabbatarian church, the young man is seized and sent to Hartford for imprisonment, pending the decision of the grand jury.

Although John Rogers has been a member of the Sabbatarian church but a few weeks, he is already pastor of a little church on the Great Neck (under the Newport church) of which his father, mother, brothers and sisters are devout attendants, together with servants of the family and neighbors who have become interested in the new departure. Who will preach to this little congregation, while its young pastor is in Hartford awaiting the issue of the Griswold vengeance? Of those who have received baptism, James is upon the “high seas,” in pursuance of his calling, and Jonathan is but a youth of twenty. Yet Mr. James Rogers does not permit the Seventh Day Sabbath of Christ and His disciples to pass unobserved. The little congregation gather at his house, as usual, and sit in reverent silence, as in the presence of the Lord. Perchance the Holy Spirit will inspire some among them to speak or to pray. They are not thus gathered because this is the Quaker custom, for they are not Quakers; they are simply following a distinct command of the Master and awaiting the fulfilment of one of His promises.

William Edmundson, the Quaker preacher, driven by a storm into New London harbor on a Saturday in May, 1675, goes ashore there and endeavors to gather a meeting, but is prevented by the authorities. Hearing there are some Baptists five miles from town, who hold their meetings upon that day, he feels impressed with a desire to visit them. Meeting with two men of friendly inclinations, who are willing to accompany him, he goes to the Great Neck and finds there this little congregation, assembled as described, “with their servants and negroes,” sitting in silence. At first (according to his account) they appear disturbed at the arrival of such unexpected guests; but, upon finding this stranger only a friendly Quaker, they welcome them cordially.

After sitting with them a short time in silence, the Quaker begins to question them in regard to their belief and to expound to them some of the Quaker doctrines. He sees they are desirous of a knowledge of God and finds them very “ready” in the Scriptures. He endeavors to convince them that after the coming of Christ a Sabbath was no longer enjoined, Christ having ended the law and being the rest of His people; also that the ordinance of water baptism should long ago have ended, being superseded by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Although in no way convinced (as is afterwards fully demonstrated), they listen courteously to his arguments and to the prayer that follows. Not only so, but, by his declaration, they are “very tender and loving.” The next day, this zealous Quaker, having obtained leave of a man in New London, who is well inclined towards the Quakers, to hold a meeting at his house, finds among his audience several of the little congregation on the Great Neck. In the midst of this meeting, the constable and other officers appear, and break it up forcibly, with rough handling and abuse, much to the indignation of those who have been anxious to give Mr. Edmundson a fair hearing.

The week after his visit to New London, Mr. Edmundson is at an inn in Hartford, where he improves an opportunity to present certain Quaker doctrines to some of those stopping there, and judges that he has offered unanswerable arguments in proof that every man has a measure of the Spirit of Christ. Suddenly, a young man in the audience rises and argues so ably upon the other side as to destroy the effect of Mr. Edmundson’s discourse. This leads the latter to a private interview’ with his opponent, whose name he finds to be John Rogers, and who proves to be “pastor” of the people whose meeting he had attended at New London, on the Great Neck. He also learns from this pastor that he was summoned to Hartford, to appear before the Assembly, for the reason that, since he became a Baptist, the father of his wife, who is of the ruling church, had been violently set against him and was, endeavoring to secure a divorce for his daughter on plea of a confession made to her by himself regarding “an ill fact” in his past life, “before he was her husband and while he was one of their church,” with which, “under sorrow and trouble of mind,” he “had acquainted her” and “which she had divulged to her father.”

Mr. Edmundson informs the young man that he has been with his people at New London and “found them loving and tender.” -(Journal of Mr. Edmundson.)

Since John Rogers remains at the inn for the night, he is evidently just released from custody. So interwoven were truth and misrepresentation in this case, that either admission or denial of the main charge must have been difficult, if not impossible, on the part of the accused. Moreover, there is for this young man, now and henceforth, no law, precedent or example, save such as he finds in the New Testament, through his Lord and Master. That Master, being asked to declare whether he was or was not the King of the Jews, a question of many possible phases and requiring such answer as his judges neither could nor would comprehend, answered only by silence. Ought this young man to repeat before these judges the exact statement made to his wife, in the sacred precincts of his own home, even if they would take the word of a despised Anabaptist like himself? It is not difficult to see the young man’s position and respect his entire silence, despite all efforts to make him speak out in regard to the accusation made by his wife in her petition.

The case before the grand jury having depended solely upon the word of a woman resolved upon divorce and seeking ground for it, they returned that they “find not the bill,” and John Rogers was discharged from custody. Yet, in view of the representations of Elizabeth in her petition regarding her unwillingness, for the alleged reasons, to remain this young man’s wife, backed by powerful influence in her favor, the court gave her permission to remain with her children at her father’s for the present, “for comfort and preservation” until a decision be rendered regarding the divorce, by the General Court in October. No pains will be spared by the friends of Elizabeth to secure a favorable decision from this court.

The Rev. Mr. Bradstreet, bitter in his prejudice against the young man by whose influence has occurred such a departure from the Congregational church as that of James Rogers and his family and such precedent for the spread of anti-presbyterian views outside of Rhode Island, writes in his journal at this date: “He is now at liberty, but I believe he will not escape God’s judgment, though he has man’s.”

Mr. Bradstreet reveals in his journal knowledge that the charge advanced against this young man related to a period previous to his marriage and conversion, and rested upon a confession that he had made to his wife under conviction of sin and belief in the saving power of Christ, which cleanses the vilest sinner.1 Yet knowing this, he says: “I believe he will not escape God’s judgment.” Truly New England Puritan theology and the theology of the New Testament are strangely at variance in these days.

1684.

A youth is growing up at Lyme, in regard to whom Matthew Griswold and his daughter Elizabeth may well feel some concern, although it afterwards appears that he is one of the brightest and manliest boys in the colony. This is none other than John Rogers, Jr. For five years past, his mother has been the wife of Peter Pratt, of Lyme, who has a son by this marriage. That gentleman is doomed to suffer no little trouble of conscience in regard to his marriage to the wife of John Rogers, having himself come to doubt that any valid reasons for the divorce ever existed.1

In May, 1684, Matthew Griswold and his daughter petition the General Court “for power to order and dispose of John Rogers, Jr., John Rogers still continuing in his evil practises,” which “evil practices” “were set forth, in the previous permission of the court regarding the continuance of the children of John Rogers with their mother, in these words: ” he being so hettridox in his opinion and practice.” Their request is granted, the youth “to be apprenticed by them to some honest man.”

John Rogers, Jr., is now barely ten years of age, and must be a forward youth to be apprenticed so young, unless we suppose this a mere device to put him under stricter control of his mother’s family. He has surely heard nothing in favor of his father from those among whom he has been reared, unless perhaps from his stepfather. Yet neither mother nor grandparents can keep his young heart from turning warmly towards the dauntless nonconformist at New London.

If it has been hoped that, by another attempt at more heroic treatment than the spasmodic onslaughts of the town magistrates, a death-blow may yet be dealt to the Rogerenes, it must soon become evident that such is unlikely to be the case. Not only so, but there is danger that some of the principal members of the New London Congregational church, and those among the most moneyed, may be won over to the new persuasion. Samuel Beebe, Jr., eldest son of one of the most substantial citizens, has recently married Elizabeth, daughter of James Rogers, and is conforming to the faith and usages of that family. Several from the Congregational church have recently been rebaptized by the new sect.

1685.

The prospect of further injury to the New London church, as well as to general church conformity in the colony, becomes such that, in the spring of 1685, another resolute attempt is made by the New London authorities, “by advice of the Governor and Council,” to put a stop to the performance of servile labor on the first day of the week, as also baptism by immersion.

On Sunday, April 12, 1685, several of the leading spirits are imprisoned for working on the first day of the week. The court records show that some of these escape, and enter the meeting-house in time of public service, to denounce such persecution of followers of the Lord, by those who pretend to worship in His name.

Two days after (April 14), John Rogers, Capt. James Rogers, Samuel Beebe, Jr., and Joanna Way are complained of before the County Court for servile work in general upon the first day of the week “and particularly upon the last first day (12th), although they have and may enjoy their persuasion undisturbed” (here is a revelation of the fact that their Saturday meetings have not been .interrupted of late, and possibly not since the institution of the countermove in 1678); also “for coming into town at several times to rebaptize persons” and “for recently disturbing public worship,” and because “they go on still to disturb and give disturbance.”

Upon examination, John Rogers is found guilty of servile work upon that first day and on many others, “by his own confession,” and “will yet go on to do it,” regardless of the law forbidding. The court also finds him guilty of “disturbing God’s people in time of public worship.” For all this, they order that he receive fifteen lashes upon the naked body. He is then complained of for baptizing a person contrary to law, “having no authority so to doe,” for which he is fined £5.

Captain James is complained of for servile work, “by his own confession,” that he worked on the last Sunday, “and would doe it again.” Also he came into the meeting-house, in time of worship, “where he behaved himself in a frantick manner to the amazing of some and causing some women to swounde away,” for which he is to have fifteen lashes on the naked body. He is also fined £5 for baptizing a negro woman.

Samuel Beebe is complained of for work on the first day and for declaring that he will continue in that practice as long as he lives. He also is to receive fifteen lashes on the naked body and to pay a fine of £5, although he is charged neither with disturbance of meeting nor with baptizing. Why this double punishment, unless because this young man has recently left the Congregational church to join the nonconformists? Such punishment may intimidate others who are thus inclined. That “discretion” granted the judges appears very prominent in this case.

Joanna Way, for servile work, for declaring that she will still continue in that practice, and for giving disturbance in the meeting-house, is sentenced to receive fifteen lashes on the naked body.

Here we find four persons, one of them a woman, receiving fifteen lashes each on the naked body for working on the first day, while keeping the seventh day, and for venturing the one sure mode of holding their persecutors in check.

In this disturbance of the meeting, Capt. James Rogers is the only one accounted guilty of “amazing” the congregation and causing women to “swounde.” He is not charged with having attempted any violence in the church, and has before this become a convert to the peaceable doctrines of the Quakers. The court record gives no hint of the words used on this occasion by Captain James, or why the women were induced to “swounde.”

Despite the £5 fine, in less than two months thereafter (June) John Rogers is complained of for baptizing, found guilty, “on his own confession,” and again fined £5.

(Although the Rogerenes continue steadfastly and openly to perform servile labor on the first day of the week, as well as to baptize, there appears no further arraignment before the court for these causes for a good while to come; the entrance into the meeting-house, April 12, 1685, proving, like the entrance of 1678, an effectual check upon their enemies.)

About the first of June of this same year, messengers are sent to New London from the Sabbatarian church at Newport, “to declare against two or more of them that were of us who are declined to Quakerism, of whom be thou aware, for by their principles they will travel by land and by sea to make disciples, yea sorry ones too. Their names are John and James Rogers and one Donham.”<  What have these two young men been doing now ? They have ventured to adopt and to preach the principle of non-resistance, and so, by this long-forward step, have “declined to Quakerism.” This adoption of peace principles appears, in the estimation of the gentle and saintly Mr. Hubbard,  recorder of the above bulletin,  to have completed their downfall. He sufficiently expresses the attitude of the Newport church towards Quakers and their non-resistant principles. John and James Rogers have not been to the Quakers to learn these principles, but have taken them directly from the New Testament, where the Quakers themselves found them.

That John and James have been baptizing persons in the town, and probably at the very mill cove where John, over seven years before, baptized his sister-in-law, is apparent. Captain James is not only baptizing, but also, as shown by Mr. Hubbard’s letter, preaching and proselyting. Mr. Hubbard does not complain of his baptizing or preaching, by which it appears that he did these in Sabbatarian order, but only of his preaching a Quaker doctrine. The names of John and Captain James still remain on the roll of membership of the Newport church. To drop them for preaching the pacific principles of the Gospel is no easier than to drop them for having accepted the principle of healing by prayer and faith as set forth in that Gospel.

In this year, Elizabeth, daughter of John Rogers, now fourteen years of age, is, at her own request, allowed by her mother and the Griswolds to return to her father; she who left him a child of three years. She is still the only daughter of her mother, and, by affirmation of both her brothers, John Rogers, 2d, and Peter Pratt: a most lovable character.

Her free committal of this girl child to the care and training of John Rogers, gives proof conclusive that “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” however she may disapprove of her former husband’s religious course, knows well of the uprightness of his character and the kindness of his heart.

1687.

In December, 1687, “Elizabeth, former wife of John Rogers,” resigns her claim to Mamacock, on condition of certain payments, in instalments, signing herself, “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold”   (New London Records.)

1688.

James Rogers, Sr., is in declining health and fast nearing the end. November 17, 1687, he was unable to sign a deed of exchange of land. It was Witnessed as his act by his sons John and James. Administration on his estate commences September, 1688. He leaves a large estate to his children, all of whom have received bountiful gifts from him in his lifetime, and all of whom are intelligent, conscientious, temperate and industrious.

While James Rogers was leading the busy life of a man of varied interests, worldly honor for his children must have been as much a stimulus as the accumulation for their sakes of money and of lands. That honor was relinquished in the cause which he and his espoused.

The esteem in which this man and his wife have been held is shown, among other things, by the failure of the Congregational church to expel them. In fact, where could that church lay a finger upon any violation, on the part of these members, of the teachings of Him in whose name that church was founded? Their names remain on the roll of Congregational church members. Yet by brethren in that church they have been scorned and injured, and their children have been lashed for venturing to follow with exactness New Testament precepts and examples.

In trouble and sorrow, under the despotism that had assumed the very authority of that Lord whom he himself had learned to trust so unreservedly, the mortal life of James Rogers approached its close. Yet, wondrously upheld by faith in God the Father, Christ the Saviour, and the presence of that Comforter which had been promised to all true believers, he was enabled to look far beyond all earthly gain or losses, all worldly disappointment and the injustice and uncharitableness of men, to the eternal blessings and rewards of heaven. Although religious preambles to wills are not unusual at this period, they are generally of a set form, with slight variations; but that which James Rogers dictated, to his son John, was an evident expression of his religious faith couched in his own words: “I do know and ,see that my name is written in the book of life.” 1

A noticeable feature of this will is the evidently anxious intention of the testator that the court shall have as little as possible to do with the settlement of his estate, and that his children shall carefully avoid any litigation concerning it.

Five years elapsed between the writing of the will’ and the decease of the testator, and in the meantime a codicil was attached to it.

It is certainly very lamentable that even one of the children of James Rogers considered it necessary to set aside the last request of so loving and generous a father, by entering upon any suit at law in regard to the settlement of his estate, and this after the first so amicable agreement on the part of each to fully abide by the terms of the will. But it is still more lamentable that, through lack of careful examination into the facts of the case, those children who positively refrained from the slightest action contrary to this request of their father, should be included in the sweeping statement of the New London historian (Miss Caulkins): “his children, notwithstanding, engaged in long and acrimonious contention regarding boundaries, in the course of which earthly judges were often obliged to interfere and enforce settlement.”

[The including of all the children in this statement is not its only error; "earthly judges" being in no way "obliged to interfere" or "enforce," otherwise than by carrying on in the usual manner the business presented to the court. Because of this erroneous statement, often quoted by other historians, it will be necessary to burden this work with exact note of every case in which any child of James Rogers has any connection with court dealings regarding the settlement of this estate, which settlement, on account of the longevity of the widow, extends over a long period, evidently much longer than was anticipated by the testator, she having been in an impaired condition for some time prior to his decease. This impairment appears to have been more of a mental than physical character, however, and of an intermittent description, indicating whole or partial recovery at intervals. When the intense strain upon mind and heart which this wife and mother must have endured ever since 1674 is considered, one cannot but suspect this to be the cause of an impairment of her mental powers while she still retained so much recuperative vigor even to unusual longevity.]

For some years previous to the date of his death, the home farm of James Rogers was upon that beautiful portion of the shore lands of the Great Neck called Goshen, and here his widow continues to reside. His son Jonathan’s place is adjoining on the south. Captain James lives in the same vicinity, and is now to have the Goshen farm lands, under the will. Although Bathsheba has a farm in this locality, received from her father, she appears to be living – with her children -at her mother’s, and her brother John is there also, with a life right in the house, under the will. Samuel Beebe resides in the same neighborhood, and Joseph at his Bruen place, near by, on Robin Hood’s Bay.

September 15, 1688, the widow executes a deed of trust (New London Probate Records) giving to her son John and daughter Bathsheba the oversight and management of the entire estate of her husband (it having been left subject to her needs for her lifetime), “even my whole interest,” fully agreeing to the complete execution of her husband’s will, as relating to herself, by these two children, according to the terms of the codicil, which gives the entire estate into their hands during the lifetime of the widow. Her son-in-law, Samuel Beebe, appears to be the justice on this occasion. Two persons, not of the family, testify to her “being apparently in her right mind,” and “speaking very reasonably.” All the children have previously entered into an agreement to carry out the plan of their father, as relates to settlement out of court, by executorship of Jolm and his guardianship, with Bathsheba, of their mother.

In this year Peter Pratt, second husband of Elizabeth Griswold, dies at Lyme, leaving her with a son who bears his name.

In this year also, Elizabeth, daughter of John Rogers, now seventeen years of age, is married, at her father’s home, to a young man named Stephen Prentis, the son of a principal planter of New London.

John Rogers, Jr., is permitted by his mother to attend the wedding of his sister. He is now, for the first time, with his father and his father’s family friends. It is an excellent opportunity for the boy of fourteen to make the acquaintance and judge of the characters of these relatives for himself. The result is that he elects to remain with his father, and soon obtains his mother’s permission to do so.  Thus ends the effort to keep the grandchildren of Mr. Matthew Griswold from the contaminating influence of John Rogers.

Account of the year 1688 should not close without mention of the appearance on this scene of a young dignitary well calculated to rekindle any flickering embers on either side of this controversy. Rev. Mr. Bradstreet having died, a new minister has been hired in the person of Gurdon Saltonstall, a young man inheriting the aristocratic and autocratic spirit of a family of rank and wealth without the gentler and more liberal qualities that adorned the character of his ancestor, Sir Richard Saltonstall.

Gurdon Saltonstall (1666-1724) Appointed the Connecticut colony's governor after Winthrop's death in 1707, and then reelected to the office annually until his own death.

Although only twenty-two years of age, he is already a rigid, uncompromising ecclesiastic, holding the authority and prestige of the Congregational church paramount, even beyond the ordinary acceptation of the time. There is such general opposition to church taxation in the community at this very time, that an attempt has recently been made to raise funds for the Congregational church by subscription, but the amount subscribed having proved very inadequate, the old method is continued. – (Caulkins.) This shows that Congregationalism in this town is, at the best, a yoke imposed upon a majority by a powerful minority. The effort, as well as the failure, to raise church money by subscription is ominous. Should such popular indifference continue, what may not befall the true church, with “hettridoxy” let loose in the land and Rhode Islandisms further overrunning the Colony?

It cannot be long before John Rogers and the zealous young advocate of Congregational rule are carefully observing and measuring each other. Fifty years ago, Congregationalist (“Independent”) leaders cropped their hair close to their heads and eschewed fine clothing; now, forsooth, nothing is too good for them, and their curling locks (wigs) are more conspicuous than those of the Cavaliers with whom Cromwell’s Roundheads fought to the death. This young man in fine ministerial garb, and with flowing wig, whom they have called to New London to preach the unworldly Gospel of Jesus Christ, is seemingly so immature that John Rogers, the man of forty, can afford to hold his peace for a space, while he goes his way, working upon the first day of the week and resting and preaching upon the seventh. The young minister, being on trial himself, awaiting ordination, cannot for some time to come venture very conspicuously on the war-path.

1690.

In 1690, extensive improvements are made in the Congregational church meeting-house. The interior is furnished with the approved style of pews, which are, as usual, assigned to the inhabitants of the town, those paying the highest rates having the highest seats. Accordingly, John Rogers and his brothers, and all the other Seventh Day people, have seats assigned them. In addition to the minister’s rates, they are assessed for these church improvements, which include a new bell. that all may be in good style for the ordination of Mr. Saltonstall. Of course, John Rogers and his followers do not pay these “rates”; but their cattle and other goods are seized and sold at auction, none of the extra proceeds being returned to them. As yet, however, there is no disturbance, although, in addition to the new rates, the town magistrates are imposing fines and inflicting punishments, from time to time, on the seventh day observers, “at their discretion.” (The terms of imprisonment of John Rogers aggregated over fifteen years, a very much longer time than the total recorded on court records. This indicates an extraordinary exercise of the delegated power accorded to local officials in his case.)

While the period of calm (upon the court records) since the last (and second) entry into the meeting-house, in 1685, is still continuing, and before the young ecclesiastic is in a position to begin his attack, let us take a general glance at the Rogers family, and first at the enterprising and wealthy Samuel Rogers, allied by marriage to some of the most prominent Congregational church members in the colony, yet himself appearing to cultivate no intimate association with the New London church, the reason for which may well be divined. He is now making active preparations for leaving New London altogether, as soon as his son Samuel is old enough to assume control of the bakery, having chosen for his future home a large tract of land in the romantic wilds of Mohegan (New London “North Parish,” now Montville). He is a great favorite with the Mohegan chief, Owaneco, son of Uncas. The popularity of Samuel Rogers with the Indians is but one of many indications of the amiable and conciliatory character of this man. His simply standing aloof from the church against whose autocratic dictum his father and brothers judged it their duty to so strenuously rebel is characteristic of the man.

On the Great Neck, Jonathan Rogers and his wife, and those of their particular persuasion, are quietly holding their meetings on Saturday, paying their Congregational church rates with regularity, however unwillingly, and working on the first day in no very noticeable manner. There is frequent interchange of visits between them and the many relatives and friends of Naomi in Newport and Westerly.

Although Captain James and wife and Joseph and his wife seem to be adhering faithfully to the radical party, there are growing up in their family several young dissenters from the Seventh Day cause. Samuel Beebe and his wife Elizabeth remain firm in the Sabbatarian faith.

John Rogers, Jr., although brought up in the house of Mr. Matthew Griswold and kept carefully from all Rogers contamination, works on the days upon which his father works, rests on the day when his father rests, and in all other ways follows his father’s lead.

Bathsheba Smith ardently adheres to the religious departure instituted by her father and her brothers. Her son, James Smith, is fifteen years of age at this date. He and his cousin John, Jr., are well agreed to follow on in the faith. Among the children of his aunt Bathsheba there is one dearest of all to John, Jr.; this is Bathsheba Smith the younger.

Others of the third generation of Rogerses are now old enough to begin to observe, reason and choose for themselves. It is not surprising if, by this time, quite a number of Rogers lads, of the James and Joseph families, frequently enter the Congregational church, with other young people, and sit in the pews assigned to their fathers. The principles of John Rogers, Captain James and others of their persuasion would prevent the issue of any command tending to interfere with individual judgment and action in such matters, whatever the anxious attempt to instill strictly scriptural opinions and conduct, by precept and example.

1691.

Preparations for the ordination of the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall being completed, that event transpires, November, 1691. About a month after this ceremony, occurs the first tilt on record between John Rogers and the ecclesiastic. In this instance, the gauntlet is thrown by the dissenter, in the shape of a wig, on the occasion of a “Contribution to the Ministry.”

John Rogers has, apparently, beheld the magisterial headgear of the young minister as long as he feels called upon to do so without some expression of dissent regarding such an unwarrantable sign of Christian ostentation. The unwelcome gift is a peaceable yet significant remonstrance from the leader of a sect determined from the outset to fearlessly express disapproval of any assumption of practices or doctrines in the name of the Christian religion that are foreign to the teachings and example of Christ. One would think that both minister and congregation might be thankful that the additional “rates” (such as cattle and other goods beyond all reason) forcibly taken from the dissenters to fit the Congregational church edifice for its elegant, wigged minister had not brought a delegation of Rogerenes to the meeting-house, to orally complain of being forced to assist in this ordination.

That John Rogers so graciously makes the apology, which is speedily demanded of him for this token of dissent, and assents to its immortalization upon the town records, is explainable in no other way than because it gives him an opportunity of publicly emphasizing the gift and his reasons therefor. The covertly facetious wording of this Apology, amounting in short to a full re-expression of the donor’s sentiments in durable form, is a refreshing relief amid all the tragedy of this man’s life.

After the ordination of Mr. Saltonstall, his influence in this community, as a clergyman of unusual learning and ability, is fully established. He makes many friends both in and out of the colony, as a staunch and talented advocate of Congregational church rule, especially among the clergy, which is an element of great influence in the General Court, and other courts as well. He will soon be in a position to wreak upon John Rogers dire vengeance, not only for the wig, but for that general nonconformity so likely to disturb the ecclesiastical polity which it is his purpose to vigorously and uncompromisingly maintain.

In this year “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” marries Matthew Beckwith of Lyme, a man much older than herself, and eleven years the senior of her former husband, John Rogers.

1691.

The children of James Rogers having petitioned the General Court to divide their father’s estate according to his will,  which was entered on record with their agreement thereto, certain persons are now appointed to make this division. At the same time, the court “desire John Rogers and Bathsheba Smith doe take the part doth belong to widow Rogers under their care and dispose that a suitable maintainance for her, etc.”

1692.

In July, 1692, there is copied upon the land records a disposition by the widow of James Rogers of certain alleged rights in her husband’s estate, viz.: such rights as would have been hers by the will had there been no codicil thereto. In this document she claims a certain thirteen acres of land on the Great Neck  to dispose of as she “sees fit,” also all “moveables” left by her husband, with the exception of £10 willed therefrom to her daughter Elizabeth Beebe. She states that she has already sold one-half of this thirteen acres to her son-in-law, Samuel Beebe. By this singular document, she not only completely ignores the codicil to her husband’s will (already acknowledged by herself, by the other heirs and by the probate court), but her recorded deed of trust, by which, in 1688, she placed her entire life interest in the estate in charge of John and Bathsheba, whose guardianship under the will had also, by agreement of all the children, been confirmed by the General Court. In the month previous to this singular act of the widow, the committee appointed by the court, to divide the estate according to the will, announced their division, adding “when John and Bathsheba shall pay out of the moveable estate  to Eliz. Beebe the sum of £10,” “if the widow so order,” the remainder of the estate, real and personal, shall “remain under the care and management of John and Bathsheba during their mother’s life for her honorable maintainance,” also that, after decease of the widow, the real estate and what shall remain of the personal estate be disposed of according to the will of the testator.

There was a distinct blunder in the words “if the widow so order” regarding the payment of the £10; since the will distinctly says that the £10 are to be paid by the widow to Elizabeth (“out of the moveables”) ” if she sees good, with the advice of my son John,” and the codicil makes no change in regard to this clause. The report of the committee omits the advice of John in this matter, which omission probably seemed not very important to any one at the time. (It will later appear that serious results ensue from this apparently slight and inadvertent court error. )

About this time, the widow gives to Elizabeth Beebe (as afterwards appears) the estimate of the £10, in the shape of a little colored girl named Joan, who is classed in the movable estate, and she does this without “the consent of my son John.” In so doing, she not only ignores the will of her husband regarding the advice of John, but also the erroneous wording of the committee’s report that this £10 is to be paid by John and Bathsheba, at her direction. Had she but permitted these guardians and executors to pay the £10, Joan would not have figured in the transaction, it being no part of the intention of John and Bathsheba (as will later appear) that any of their father’s slaves should be sold or given away to remain in lifelong bondage. The two executors and guardians make no complaint to the court of these irregular actions on the part of their mother, or of the wrong wording of the recent report of the committee (nor shall we in any instance find them deviating by a hair’s breadth from the request of their father to make no appeal regarding his estate to earthly judges, although such appeal at this early stage would have saved incalculable trouble hereafter). However, Joan is not given over by them to Elizabeth Beebe.

Another part of the erratic document of the widow is that after her death all the “moveables” shall be divided between her son Jonathan and her daughter Elizabeth, again totally ignoring the codicil of the will, which speaks only of John, Bathsheba and Captain James as being concerned in the division of “the moveables” after her death, except that Elizabeth is to have “three cows.”

Although the widow has evidently the encouragement and assistance of Samuel Beebe in this proceeding, there is no appearance of any complicity on the part of Jonathan, who exactly conforms to the terms of the will and the executorship of John. Captain James makes no complaint to the court of the fact that Samuel Beebe is already claiming, under this procedure of the widow, a piece of land which is a part of the farm given to himself by the will, for which he is paying rent to his mother by order of the executor. He quietly makes a temporary sale of the thirteen acres to an attorney, of which sale Samuel Beebe complains (New London Records), but evidently in vain.

This is but the beginning of annoyances which certain children of James Rogers are to endure, on account of their determination not to disobey their father’s request in regard to any appeal to “earthly judges.” Little could the testator foresee that his attempt to keep his estate out of the court would be the very means of litigation, through the vagaries of his mentally diseased widow, unchecked by appeal to the court on the one hand, and encouraged by interested parties on the other.

1693.

Before the close of the year 1693, John Rogers is fined £4 for entertaining two Quakers at his house “for a month or more.” He has (by the testimony of his son, see above) no fellowship with these men, except as regards his concurrence in the doctrine of non-resistance and some few other particulars. For non-payment of this fine, he is in prison (and remains there well into the next year). This is but the beginning of more stringent measures than have prevailed since the disturbance of the Congregational meeting in 1685, which seems to have won a seven years’ respite from severe persecution.

As yet, the ambitious young minister, Gurdon Saltonstall, appears to have found no good opportunity for attempting to suppress this intractable man. But if John Rogers is to be prevented from continuing to scatter, broadcast, doctrines so subversive to a state church, he should be checked without further delay. In this lapse of severer and more public discipline on the part of the authorities, he has been gathering more converts from the Congregational fold, and has even grown so bold as to come into the very heart of the town to preach his obnoxious doctrines. Prominent citizens, who ought to be above countenancing him, are not only among his hearers, but among his converts.

Samuel Fox, a member of the Congregational church and one of the most prosperous business men of the place, has recently married the widow Bathsheba Smith and adopted her faith. He may be very influential in gaining more such followers, unless deterrent measures are soon taken. How long could the Congregational church be maintained, on its present footing, if such a new birth as this man describes should be required before admission; aye, if any conversion other than turning from, or avoidance of, immoral practices be generally insisted upon? Moreover, this ranting against “hireling ministers” is of itself calculated to weaken and destroy a capable and orderly ministry, to say nothing of baptism by immersion, administering the communion in the evening (after the example of Christ), the nonsensical doctrine of non-resistance, and the rest of this man’s fanatical notions, all of which, strange to say, are attracting favorable attention in intelligent quarters. There is Mr. Thomas Young, for instance, a man of the highest respectability, and allied to some of the best families in the church and the place; it is even understood that John Rogers is to be invited to preach at his house.

But what shall be done with the man? Despite the regular fine of £5, he goes right on with his baptisms and rebaptisms, sometimes on the very day he is released from imprisonment on this account. Fines and imprisonments for other offenses, also, hold him in check only so long as he is in prison. Moreover, the grand jurymen and other officials have become very indulgent regarding his offenses; certain of them appear to connive in leaving him undisturbed in his defiance of ecclesiastical laws. By what means can he be kept in durance long enough to lose his singular and growing popularity; or how can he be put out of sight and hearing altogether?

At least one aspect is encouraging; some of the Rogers young people are inclining towards the Congregational church, in spite of their elders James, Jr., (son of Captain James), is evidently not in sympathy with the family departure. Let us make much of this young man; he seems a right sensible fellow. Joseph’s sons, with the exception of James (the eldest), appear to be well inclined also. In fact, John Rogers himself is the only one of the original dissenters who is causing any very serious disturbance nowadays. Something of this kind is likely enough to be passing in the mind of Mr. Saltonstall.

In this year, 1693, another difficulty occurs regarding the settlement of the James Rogers estate. The persons appointed to divide the land among the children according to the terms of the will have given Jonathan a farm, “with house thereon,” which was included in the lands given to Joseph by his father in 1666. Joseph (as has been shown) resigned all of this gift of land to his father in 1670, but the latter redeeded the most (or supposedly all) of it back to him in 1683. Joseph appears to have understood that this farm was included in the second deed of gift, and it is probable that his father supposed it to have been thus included, by the terms of the deed. Upon examination, however, the committee have decided that this farm remains a part of the estate of the testator, and, by the terms of the will regarding the division of the residue of land between James and Jonathan, it falls to Jonathan. Naturally, Jonathan has nothing to do but to take what is accorded to him by the decision of those to whom the division has been entrusted, who have divided it to the best of their knowledge and ability. Although Joseph is in much the same position, acquiescence in his case is far less easy. He does not find any fault with the will, but simply claims this farm as his own by the deed of gift of his father, and arbiters are appointed to decide the matter. These men appear to labor under no small difficulty in concluding to which of the two the farm should really belong, but finally decide in favor of Jonathan. Joseph is unwilling to abide by this decision, asserting that some of the evidence on the other side has not been of a fair character. Consequently the case is reopened, with considerable favor shown, on the part of the court, to the representations of Joseph. Jonathan’s part in the case is to present evidence in favor of his right to the property awarded to him; so that he cannot be said to have gone to law in the matter.

(This attempt of Joseph to regain a farm he had supposed to be his own, is the sole “contention regarding boundaries,” which was ascribed by Miss Caulkins to the “children.” It in no way concerns the executor, who had no part whatever in designating the boundaries or dividing the land. Joseph appears to have hesitated at first to make any move in the matter; the opening protest was made in 1692 by his wife, in regard to the deed by which her husband returned to his father (in 1670) the first gift of land.)

1694.

The time is now come for the Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall to prove what he can do, to stay the progress of this nonconformist movement under the masterly leadership of John Rogers. It is not his intention to confine his efforts to the ineffectual methods heretofore employed, the most public of which have been presentation of leading Rogerenes before the County Court, a procedure that, for some reason (at this date quite obscure), is sure to provoke the dreaded countermove, which has each time accomplished so much for the nonconformists.

The brilliant plan finally matured by Mr. Saltonstall is to capture John Rogers and imprison him at a distance from New London. As in many another contest, the fall of the leader is the death of the cause, or the longer he can be separated from his followers the more will their cause be weakened and the greater the check to his proselyting career, which is just now so alarmingly in the ascendant. There are many dignitaries who share such sentiments with Mr. Saltonstall. A satisfactory plan being matured, it can readily be carried out. Such a plan (which is gradually disclosed in the sequence of events) may be outlined as follows:

For the first part of the program, resort will he had to the old apprehension for servile labor, with arraignment before the County Court. It is presumable, according to precedent, that this will be sufficient to bring out the countermove, which will result in a large fine – with larger bond for good behavior – payment of which being refused, as it undoubtedly will be, the bird will be fully secured in its first cage.

The second part of the plan is, having caught John Rogers in some expression of doctrine or sentiment that will furnish ground for his arrest as a preacher of an unwarrantable sort, to secure his trial before the Superior Court, with adverse verdict and imprisonment in Hartford jail.

According to such a plan; John Rogers will receive a double dose that may prove effectual. The two parts of this plan take place as nearly together as possible, the first standing in abeyance until evidence is secured for the second procedure. This evidence is obtained late in the month of February, 1694, Saturday the 24th.

Upon this date, John Rogers is holding a meeting in town, in the house of Mr. Thomas Young, a gentleman nearly allied, as has been said, to some of the principal members of the Congregational church, and among them to the Christophers family, several of which family (notably Christopher and John) are very intimate friends of Mr. Saltonstall, as well as prominent officials of New London. The large number gathered to listen to this discourse indicates the drawing power of the speaker. Some of his own Society are present, including his son John. It need scarcely be said that the having interested Mr. Thomas Young so seriously is one of the offenses of which John Rogers is now conspicuously guilty.  John Christophers, Daniel Wetherell (another New London official and friend of Mr. Saltonstall) and Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall enter this meeting for a sinister purpose.

The subject selected by John Rogers for his discourse on this occasion is one particularly relating to Rogerene dissent; it is the necessity of a new birth and the wonderful changes wrought in body and soul by that divine miracle.  That only by such an operation of the Holy Spirit can a man become in truth one with Christ, is the burden of the theme. Not only has the speaker wealth of scriptural foundation for this discourse, but by his own conversion, so sudden and so powerful, he has internal evidence of the mysterious change set forth in the New Testament. No subject could better bring out the fervor and eloquence of the man. He declares that the body of an unregenerate person is a body of Satan, Satan having his abode therein, and that the body of a regenerate person is a body of Christ, Christ dwelling in such a body.

It is (and is to be) a conspicuous feature of Mr. Saltonstall’s ministry that no experience of this kind is to be considered necessary to church membership; such a test as this would never allow of that great ingathering to the state church which he desires to see firmly established and maintained.

The Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall and his accomplices do not listen to this discourse in concealment from the speaker, however they may stand apart from the hearers that gather cordially about the remarkable man in their midst. That these three men are his enemies, none know better than the keen-eyed man who beholds them there; but it may well be judged that their presence gives no tremor to his heart or his voice, but, the rather, adds nerve and emphasis.

Mr. Saltonstall, watching his opportunity, and holding the attention of his accomplices, inquires of the speaker:

“Will you say that your body is the body of Christ ?”

The reply of John Rogers shows the quick wit of the man. He evidently perceives the intention to entrap him, and is, moreover, unwilling to allow the expression, which he has been using in a general way, to bear this bald, personal application, with its intended insinuation of irreverence.

“Yes, I do affirm that this human body (bringing his hand against his breast) is Christ’s body; for Christ has purchased it with His precious blood, and I am not my own, for I am bought with a price.”

Even thus ingeniously and reverently the speaker adheres to his affirmation that the body of a man as well as his soul belongs after regeneration to Christ and is animated by Him.

It was a reply that turned the edge of the enemy’s sarcasm and left the speaker free to continue his discourse in no way disconcerted by the trick. He now goes on to picture, with glowing face and words, the brotherhood into which the regenerate man enters; that of Christ, the firstborn of many brethren, and of the disciples and apostles. The light upon his face as he speaks may well border upon a smile, and his voice take on an exultant tone (to be called on the court record “a laughing and a flouting way “).

From this perfectly Scriptural discourse, the spies now manage to construct a charge of blasphemy, which, under good management and by powerful influence, will aid in sending this man to Hartford prison. Red tape, however, is necessary, before this action can be brought. In the meantime, trial will be made of the other portion of the plot, which will imprison him at once in New London jail.

The very next day {Sunday, February 25, 1694), John Rogers is arrested for “carting boards,” and Samuel Fox “for catching eels on that holy day.” Both are arraigned before the County Court now in session. It is the first arraignment of this kind since 1685. During all these nine years, John Rogers and all of his Society have been working upon the first day of the week, as for the ten years previous to 1685. If the countermove now takes place, according to the plan indicated, John Rogers steps directly into the trap that has been set for him. That he does step into it is certain; that he does it without a clear understanding of the situation is by no means to be inferred. While he may not have counted upon so deeply laid a scheme as that which is shortly to develop, yet he is evidently conscious of a situation which renders it necessary that he, on his part, should act as promptly and boldly in this crisis as it appears to be the intention of his enemies to act. (We shall soon come upon proof that the town authorities, instigated undoubtedly by the same leader and his friends, have been, for some time past, attacking  not only the Rogerenes, but the regular Seventh Day Baptists, despite the quiet, compromising attitude of the latter sect; a fact so uncommon heretofore as to amount, in connection with the other appearances, to proof positive that an unusual emergency is confronting all these nonconformists at this time, and that John Rogers not only steps forward to check the advances upon his own Society, but as the champion of the. Seventh Day cause at large.

Not having paid his fine, there is now nearly a week in which John Rogers may meditate in prison before the next Sunday (March 4) arrives, which he appears to do to good purpose. In some way he manages to communicate with his ever devoted and ready sister Bathsheba, and also with his faithful Indian servant, William Wright. Evidently the 20s. fine is sufficient to keep him in prison over this Sunday, and the wait of a week longer would detract from the full force of the countermove. This difficulty must be overcome.

The next Sunday and meeting time arrives. Mr. Saltonstall’s service proceeds, to which of its many heads is uncertain. Despite the fact that his opponent is in prison, does every blast of the March wind seem to rattle the meeting-house door ominously?

Some one ought surely, and at the earliest possible moment, to make the olden move. The lot has fallen upon Bathsheba. She enters the church with (apparently) womanly modesty, simply to announce that she has been doing servile work upon this day and has come purposely to declare it. (County Court Record.) She is placed in the stocks. But the end is not yet.

John Rogers himself enters the meeting-house upon this veritable Sunday, March 4. It is in the “afternoon” (County Court Record), and, as shown by his copy of “Mittemus” (Part I, Chapter II), he has by some means escaped from prison for this purpose.

When he appears, it is in a manner calculated to excite in the preacher whose discourse is interrupted, something besides delight at the success of the latter’s masterly scheme to entrap him. He enters with a wheelbarrow load of merchandise, which he wheels directly to the front of the pulpit, before any in the assembly can sufficiently recover from their astonishment to lay hands upon him. From this commanding position he turns and offers his goods for sale.  The scene that ensues before he is returned to prison must be imagined.

Upon this same Sunday, William Wright, “an Indian servant of John Rogers,” makes a “disturbance,” “outside of the meeting house,” “in time of worship.” Refusing to pay a fine for his misdemeanor, he is whipped ten stripes on the naked body. (County Court Record.)

Mr. Saltonstall has one consolation for this certainly unexpected style of entrance. He can hardly have reckoned upon such a stupendous move to aid in securing the long incarceration of his opponent. The “Proclamation” which John Rogers soon hangs out at his prison window, to keep before the public his steadfast determination to oppose the doctrines and measures of the ruling church, is still further ground for the intended removal to Hartford and trial before that court, which is soon effected through the “Mittemus.”

On the part of John Rogers, his procedure, from beginning to end, indicates his knowledge of an important crisis, as regards the Seventh Day cause, and his judgment that the boldest move possible on his part is the wisest at this time.

[For many a year to come, there will be found no presentment at court of any of the Rogerenes for servile work upon the first day of the week. Nevertheless they do not escape. When it becomes doubtful if juries will punish them, the town authorities may be instigated to the task.

The wheelbarrow episode was an extreme measure adopted at a critical time, when, after so long a cessation of violent measures, the battle was begun anew under the leadership of Mr. Saltonstall.]

1695.

In May, at a special session of the Superior Court, at Hartford, John Rogers is tried upon the following charges: –

1. For that in New London, in Feb. last, thou didst lay thy hand upon thy breast and say: This is the humane body of Christ, which words are presumptuous, absurd and of a blasphemous nature.

2. For saying, concerning a wheelbarrow thou broughtest into the meeting house about a week or fortnight before, that Christ drove the wheelbarrow – an impious belying of Christ, accusing him to be the author of sin and was on the Sabbath day.

3. Thou art presented for disturbing the congregation of New London on the Lord’s day, when they were in the public worship of God.

4. Also for saying in court that thou did’st nothing and had said nothing but what thy Lord and Master sent thee to doe etc. which expressions were spoken in answer to the governor, who reproved thee for disturbing God’s people in his day and worship.

The evidence against the prisoner in regard to these matters is given by. Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, Daniel Wetherell and John Christophers, and by “an old man in New London prison,” who testifies that he heard John Rogers say “that he was in Christ and just and holy, and ministers would carry people to the devil.” Stated in record that John Rogers owned to saying he was in Christ, but denied the rest of the statement by the old man. He also denied that he said Christ drove the wheelbarrow into the church.

Messrs. Saltonstall, Christophers and Wetherell testify that (“at Mr: Thomas Young’s”) they saw John Rogers lay his hand on his breast, and heard him say: “This is the humane body of Christ; “they also heard him say in a “laughing,” or “as they thought in a flouting way,” “brother Jesus and brother Paul.” Owned in court by John Rogers “that he said his body was Christ’s ” , also that he used the term brother in regard to Christ and Paul.

The opinions of four ministers are taken as to the blasphemous nature of said expressions. The names of these ministers are “Samuel Stow, Moses Noyes, Timothy Woodbridge and Caleb Watson.” They judge that the expression, “This is the humane body of Christ,” has a high blasphemous reflection. The saying “brother Jesus is also a presumptuous expression, in the manner of his saying it” (viz., as rendered by Gurdon Saltonstall). “The saying that Christ drove the wheelbarrow is an impious belying of Christ” (regardless of the prisoner’s denial of having made any such statement). “The reflections on our worship are a slanderous charge against the generation of the righteous, and heretical and impious.” They also ” apprehend that in every one of the expressions evidenced against him there is a high and abominable profanation of the name of Christ.”

Verdict, guilty. Sentence: -To be led forth to the place of execution with a rope about his neck, and there to stand upon a ladder leaning against the gallows, with the rope about his neck, for a quarter of an hour. And for his evil speaking against the ordinances of God to pay a fine of £5; for disturbing the congregation to be kept in prison until he gives security to the value of £50 for his peaceable behavior and non-disturbance of the people of God for the future and until he pay to the keeper of the prison his just fees and dues.

Here is set forth a term of imprisonment which can be ended only by some change of policy on the part of the authorities; since it is well known by those who have this matter in charge that John Rogers never gives such security or bonds.

By this time, excitement and sympathy on the part of friends, followers and relatives of the prisoner are undoubtedly at their height, and it is probable that these people give somewhat free expression to their indignation, especially regarding the charge of blasphemy and the consequent ignominious punishment. Neither they nor the prisoner expected other than severe measures regarding the wheelbarrow affair, which was a very bold stroke of countermove in an extraordinary emergency.

In June, close following the trial and punishment inflicted upon John Rogers at Hartford, the New London meeting-house burns to the ground.

But for the excitement among the dissenters, this disaster might be attributed to some other cause; but under the circumstances it is a convenient and plausible charge to lay at their door. About the same time, also, Stonington meeting-house is desecrated by “daubing it with filth.”

Bathsheba Fox, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright (the Indian servant before referred to) are arraigned before the Superior Court at Hartford, on suspicion of being “concerned in” both of the above occurrences. The only evidence against John, Jr., and his aunt Bathsheba is of a circumstantial character, to the effect that some conversation transpired previous to these occurrences which it is considered may have instigated the burning and desecration on the part of others, notably of William Wright. The latter is convicted of defiling the Stonington meeting-house.

It is probable that, in the height of their excitement over the treatment John Rogers received at Hartford, Bathsheba, John, Jr., and others expressed great indignation against Mr. Saltonstall and the New London church generally. Yet the burning of the meeting-house was probably as much a surprise to them as to anyone, and certainly as great a financial disaster; since upon them more than upon others, by exorbitant seizure of property, must fall the expense of a new edifice. This latter fact, as well as certainty that suspicion and apprehension must surely fall in their quarter, would naturally deter them from any such undertaking. Also, retaliatory measures of this description are contrary to the principles of this sect.

At this same Superior Court session, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright are charged with having recently assisted in the escape from the Hartford prison of a man, “Matthews,” who was condemned to death. William Wright is charged with assisting Matthews to escape from prison, and John Rogers, Jr., is accused of conveying him out of the colony. He appears to have been soon recaptured, and is again in prison at the time these charges are preferred. This is not the only instance in which John Rogers, Jr., is found running great risk and displaying great courage in a cause which he deems right before God, however criminal in the judgment of men.

For assisting in this escape, William Wright is to pay half the charges incurred in recapturing Matthews. For “abusing” Stonington meeting-house, for not acknowledging to have heard alleged conversations among the Rogerses and their confederates in regard to the burning of New London meeting-house, and for having made his escape from justice (by which he appears to have recently escaped from jail ), he is to be “sorely whipped” and returned to Hartford prison.

John Rogers, Jr., for being “conspicuously guilty of consuming New London meeting house” (although no slightest evidence of such guilt is recorded), “for having been in company with some who held a discourse of burning said meeting house” (although no such discourse has been proven), and “that he did encourage the Indian to fly far enough” (this appears to refer to William Wright’s “escape from justice”), and “for being active in conveying Matthews out of the colony,” is placed under bond for trial. It is shown that his uncle, Samuel Rogers, has appeared and given bail for him. (There is no after record to show that such trial ever took place, and no slightest mention of any further proceeding in the matter.) This act of Samuel Rogers is one of the frequent evidences of cordial friendship between John, Jr., and his uncle.

Bathsheba, for “devising and promoting” the firing of the meeting-house, and the “defiling” of that at Stonington, is to pay a fine of £10 or be severely whipped. This fine is probably paid by Samuel Rogers. It certainly would not be paid by her. The sole evidence against John, Jr., and Bathsheba is in the character of vague rumors of indignant discourse relating to the recent moves against John Rogers, Sr. No proof of any complicity is recorded.

John, Jr., and Bathsheba are freed, but William Wright remains in Hartford jail with his master (and will continue there for three years to come), not for burning the meeting-house, which is not proven against him, nor for defiling that at Stonington (on suspicion of which he has already been punished with the stripes); not (save in part) for the charges incurred by the rescue of Matthews, but (as will be evident three years later) for his averred determination not to submit to the law regarding servile labor on the first day of the week.

In the meantime, Mr. Saltonstall and his friends, who have recently been congratulating themselves on the success of their scheme for keeping John Rogers in Hartford jail, are gravely contemplating the ashes of their meeting-house and the remnants of  its new bell, with still further uneasiness in regard to results like enough to ensue from added distrainments of the nonconformists towards the building of another edifice.

Nor is this all. There are prominent members of this very church who have so long been witnesses of wrongs and provocations on the part of the authorities towards the conscientious non-conformists, and have seen these wrongs and provocations so increased of late, that they are willing to join with representatives of those people in an open remonstrance.

In October of this year, occurs the terrible and mysterious public scourging of John Rogers at Hartford, which is best given in his own words and those of his son, of which act, or cause for it, no slightest mention is to be found on court records. All this is but the beginning of vengeance for his continued refusal to bind himself to what the court terms “good behavior.” Close following any such bonds, would be the institution of such procedures against the Rogerenes as would tend to annihilate their denomination. But so long as the dreaded countermove is to be looked for, in times of extremity, some degree of caution must be exercised, even by the rulers of Connecticut.

The “Remonstrance,” to which reference has been made, appears in January of this year, and is issued by Capt. James Rogers, Richard Steer, Samuel Beebe and Jonathan Rogers. Appended to it are many names. Briefly stated, it is charged that the Congregational church have been so accustomed to persecute those that dissent from them “that they cannot forbear their old trade;” that the design of the Act of Parliament for liberty to Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers and Baptists, to worship according to the dictates of conscience

“is violently opposed by some whose narrow principles, fierce inclinations .and self interest have wedded to a spirit of persecution and an itch for domineering over their neighbors. That the present actions of the authority show that the king has nothing to do with this colony. That the compelling them to pay towards the maintainance of a Congregational Minister is contrary to law and therefore rapine and robbery. That the rights of peaceable dissenters have been of late, by permission of the authorities, violated, and that the authority has illegally oppressed them.”

(Here is proof of recent unusual procedures by the town magistrates, not only against the Rogerenes, but in regard to the quiet dissenters on the Great Neck and elsewhere. This persecution has been going on out of sight of the general public, by action of the town authorities, since no County Court record appears, undoubtedly it was this revival of indignities that stirred John Rogers to his bold move.) The “emitters” of this paper are placed under bonds for appearance at the County Court, where they are fined £5 each “for defamation of their Majesties,” viz.: “the Gov. of Conn. and others in authority,” as well as “breach of His Majesty’s peace and disquietude of his liege people.” The “emitters” appeal to the Superior Court, not because they expect any favor from that quarter, but it keeps the cause before that public in whose sense of justice is all their hope.

1697.

Before May of this year, and while another trial of the case regarding the claim of Joseph to land awarded Jonathan is still in progress, occurs the death of Joseph Rogers. It is not unlikely that had both brothers lived they would have come to an amicable adjustment of the difficulty; since the evident perplexity of those charged with examination into the case, indicates reasonable arguments upon either side, and thus a matter well fitted for compromise.

Our glimpses of Joseph Rogers are meagre. He and his wife appear not to have joined the Newport church, but were evidently members of the church of which John Rogers was pastor. (We have seen the wife’s baptism, Chapter II.) Yet, of late years, Joseph has been scarcely more noticeable than Jonathan, as regards arraignment for labor on the first day of the week, which, as in case of the latter, appears to prove that his labor was not of an ostentatious character. That he was steady, thrifty, industrious and enterprising is very evident. He added largely, by purchase, to the lands given him by his father, and had become proprietor of a saw-mill and corn-mill at Lyme. He died intestate, and his widow, Sarah, administered on his estate. Sarah Rogers now carries forward the suit in which her husband was engaged. The court appears not unfavorable to her presentation of the case; but, on account of a neglect on her part in regard to certain technicalities, the trial comes to a pause, and, through lack of further action on her part, the case is again decided in favor of Jonathan.

In March, 1697, complaint is made to the Governor and Council that John Rogers and William Wright, who were “to be kept close prisoners,” are frequently permitted to walk at liberty, and the complainants (names not stated) declare their extreme dissatisfaction with the jailer and any that connive with him in this matter. It is ordered that said persons be hereafter kept close prisoners, and that the jailer or others who disobey this order be dealt with according to law. Has John Rogers made such friends with the prejudiced and cruel jailer of 1694? Even so (see Part I., Chapter IV ., for testimony of Thomas Hancox, and Part I, Chapter II., for scourging of John Rogers at Hartford and part of same jailer in this abuse).

In 1697, the General Court appoint a committee to revise the laws of the colony and certain “reverent elders” to advise the persons chosen in this affair, and also “to advise this court in what manner they ought to bear testimony against the irregular actions of John Rogers in printing and publishing a book reputed scandalous and heretical.”

John Rogers, Jr., is now twenty-three years of age, a young man of brilliant parts and daring courage. Since he is the printer and circulator of this book, he is probably also its author. In this same month of May, “John Rogers, Jr.,” is “bound in a bond of £40″ “to appear at court” (Superior) “to answer what may be objected against him for bringing a printed book or pamphlet into this colony which was not licensed by authority, and for selling the same up and down the colony, as also for other misdemeanors ”  the nature of the latter not indicated. No complaint being presented against him, he is dismissed.

[Could a copy of this pamphlet be found, great light might be thrown upon this stormy period, by revelation of the full circumstances leading up to the desperate entry of John Rogers into the meeting-house in 1694, the plot of Mr. Saltonstall and the "Remonstrance in Behalf of Peaceable Dissenters."

That this book, sold "up and down the colony" by John Rogers, Jr., was for the enlightenment of the people at large regarding the cause, and lack of cause, for the long imprisonment and cruel treatment of his father, with representation of the case for the non-conformists, can scarcely be doubted. We can picture this talented and manly youth going from place to place, eagerly seeking and finding those who will listen to his eloquent appeal to buy and read this tale of wrong and woe, in the almost single-handed struggle for religious liberty in Connecticut.]

Does the little book create so much sympathy ” up and down the colony,” that it is no longer wise to keep John Rogers incarcerated, or are his ecclesiastical enemies at last sated by his nearly four years of close imprisonment in Hartford jail? However this may be, at the October session of the Superior Court, 1697, John Rogers is brought from prison and “set at liberty in open court,” “in expectation that he will behave himself civilly and peaceably in the future.” The promise of good behavior is not required of him, as formerly, but in its place the “in expectation,” etc., which is not their expectation at all, unless with the proviso that they themselves observe due caution in the handling of him and his followers. They are apparently mindful of public opinion and of the little book.

William Wright is also brought from prison to this court. He stands here, in the presence of this master, who has just been set at liberty, awaiting his own turn to be freed. For more than three years, these men have been comrades in Hartford prison. They dwelt together at the home of James Rogers, Sr., the Indian a servant of the latter, and, since his death, servant of the executor, John Rogers. The master has been kind and trustful, the servant faithful to a remarkable extent. But for signal proof of heroic allegiance to this nonconformist, he had not been in prison at all.

The master is waiting that his servant may go with him from the court-room as a free man. But no! As the ceremony proceeds, the Indian is offered his freedom only on condition that he will promise to “behave himself civilly and peaceably in future,” which would include refraining from servile work upon the first day of the week. They are demanding promises of the despised red man that they dare not exact of the white man, who has no lack of money or of friends.

Well may the warm blood of this master spring crimson to cheek and brow. But not alone the master, the servant himself. They would compel him to desert his master! The blood of the Indian is a match for that of the Saxon.

William Wright, standing in swarthy dignity before this worshipful court, declines his freedom on terms not only unjust to himself but demanding infidelity to that master and that cause for which he has been so ready to venture and to suffer. He declares before this assembly that he will not submit to the law against servile labor on the first day of the week, that said law “is a human invention,” and that he will work upon the first day of the week so long as he lives.

For this admirable fidelity to his religion and his friends, he is sentenced to be returned to prison “until there shall be opportunity to send him out of the colony on some vessel, as a dangerous disturber of the peace,” and in case of his return he shall be whipped and again transported.

The wonder is that John Rogers held his peace until the full completion of this sentence. Had an outburst of indignation and condemnation of this unjust sentence not been forthcoming, as this faithful servant was being returned to the close imprisonment of Hartford jail, then might it be said that John Rogers could, for fear or favor, stand silent in the presence of injustice. For such an outburst as this  John Rogers is immediately fined is. This “contempt of court” is briefly rendered on the records as follows:

“John Rogers upon the above sentence being passed upon William Wright behaved himself disorderly, in speaking without leave and declaring that he did protest against the said sentence.”

Since he never pays such fines (except through execution upon his property) he is probably returned to prison with his faithful servant, there to continue until this fine shall be cancelled.

Before the close of this year, Jonathan Rogers is accidentally drowned in Long Island Sound. Our glimpses of this youngest son of James Rogers have been slight and infrequent. That he possessed firmness and independence, is shown by his resolution to continue fully within the Newport church. The fact that this made no break – other than upon religious points with his Rogerene relatives reveals both tact and an amiable and winning personality. In his inventory are “cooper’s tools,” “carpenter’s tools” and “smith’s tools,” indicating an enterprising man concerned in several occupations, according to the fashion of his time.

1698.

When John Rogers is finally released from prison, the rancor with which he is still pursued by Mr. Saltonstall, with intent to weaken his financial power to continue his bold stand, is proven by the preposterous suit instituted against him almost immediately (Superior Court) for alleged defamation, in saying that he (Saltonstall) agreed to hold a public argument with him (Rogers) on certain points of scripture, which agreement said Saltonstall failed to fulfil.

(Motive for any such alleged statement, unless true, being lacking, and a pamphlet being published not long after by John Rogers, giving a detailed account of the whole cause and proceeding, by which the exorbitant sum of £600 recovery for libel, with costs of court, was levied upon him, it is presumable that enmity and court influence were at the bottom of this suit, if not clearly on the surface. Ecclesiastical power was dominant at this time in all the courts. Ever back of Mr. Saltonstall stood this power, as intent as himself upon the overthrow of this daring nonconformist. Could a copy of the pamphlet by John Rogers, giving details of that remarkable suit, be found, much light would doubtless be cast upon this period in the history of the Rogerenes.)

The death of Elizabeth, widow of James, has recently occurred. John Rogers has changed his home from the Great Neck to Mamacock farm, North Parish. His sister Bathsheba has also removed to the North Parish, to a place called Fox’s Mills, from the mills owned and carried on by her husband, Samuel Fox.

1698.

The long and close imprisonment of John Rogers in Hartford, attended as it was with a bitter sense of wrong, would seem sufficient to undermine the strongest constitution. To this was added anxiety regarding home affairs, including charge of his father’s estate and the care of his mother, which were devolving wholly upon his sister Bathsheba. His mother’s death close following his release, and business neglected during the past four years, must have borne hard on his enfeebled system, to say nothing of annoyance and difficulty on account of Mr. Saltonstall’s recovery of the £600. Although he has gathered his family (son and servants) about him, at Mamacock farm, and resumed the leadership of his Society, he can scarcely as yet be the man he was four years ago.

It must be sweet to breathe again the open air of freedom, and such air as blows over Mamacock; purest breezes from river and from sea, fragrant with the breath of piney woods, of pastures filled with flowers and herbs, and of fields of new-mown hay, mingled with the wholesome odor of seaweed cast by the tide upon Mamacock shore.

Not far from the house, towards the river, in a broad hollow in the greensward, bordered on the north by a wooded cliff and commanding a view of the river and craggy Mamacock peninsula, is a clear, running stream and pool of spring water. Here yet (1698) the Indians come as of old, with free leave of the owner, to eat clams, as also on Mamacock peninsula, at both of which places the powdered white shells in the soil will verify the tradition for more than two hundred years to come. In this river are fish to tempt the palate of an epicure, and trout abound in the neighboring streams. A strong-built, white-sailed boat is a part of this lovely scene, and such a boat will still be found here for many years to come.

1699.

If after the perilous trials, hardships and irritations of the past four years, this man has a mind to enjoy life, as it comes to him at Mamacock, it is not strange.

Nor is it strange that, among his house servants, he soon particularly notices a young woman, lately arrived from the old country, whose services he has bought for so long as will reimburse him for payment of her passage. Perhaps the chief cause of his interest is in the fact that she herself has taken a liking to the half-saddened man who is her master. Surely he who could so attach to himself a native Indian like William Wright, has traits to win even the favor of a young woman. He is evidently genial and indulgent with his servants, rather than haughty and censorious.

For twenty-five years he has been a widower, except that the grave has not covered the wife of his youth. Through all these years, the bitterest of his calumniators have not raised so much as a whisper questioning his perfect fidelity to Elizabeth, who, since the divorce, has been the wife of two other men and yet ever by this man has been considered as rightfully his own. Such being the case, well may his son wonder that he is becoming interested in this young housemaid, Mary Ransford, even to showing some marked attentions, which she receives with favor. She is a comely young woman, no doubt, as well as lively and spirited. Her master will not object to her having a mind of her own, especially when she displays due indignation regarding the wholesale method of gathering the minister’s and church rates. But when she goes so far as to “threaten” to pour scalding water on the head of the collector of rates, as he appears at the front door upon that ever fruitless errand, this master must give her a little lesson in the doctrine of non-resistance, although his eyes may twinkle with covert humor at her zeal. As for the rates, they must be taken out of the pasture.

Evidently this attractive girl, Mary, is willing to assent to anything this indulgent master believes to be right, taking as kindly to his doctrines as to himself. A man of soundest constitution, as proven from first to last, and of great recuperative energy, he is not old at fifty-two, despite imprisonments, stripes and ceaseless confiscations. It soon becomes plain to John the younger that this is no ordinary partiality for an attractive and devoted maid, but that his father will ask this young woman to become his wife. For the first time, there is a marked difference of opinion between father and son. Mary is perfectly willing to pledge herself to this man, even under the conditions desired. As for him, why should he longer remain single, seeing there is no possible hope of reclaiming the wife whom he still tenderly loves. There are arguments enough upon the other side. John, Jr., presents them very forcibly, and especially in regard to the inconsistency of putting any woman in his mother’s place, so long as his father continues to declare that Elizabeth is still, in reality, his wife.

To this latter and chief argument, the father replies that he shall not put Mary in his first wife’s place, since that marriage has never been annulled, by any law of God or of man. Did not God, in the olden times, allow two kinds of wives, both truly wives, yet one higher than the other? Under the singular circumstances of this case, being still bound to Elizabeth by the law of God, yet separated from her by the will of men, he will marry Mary, yet not as he married Elizabeth Griswold. He will openly and honorably marry her, yet put no woman in the place of his first wife. To this Mary agrees.

It is but another outcome of this man’s character. He fears God and God alone. He takes very little thought as to what man may think or do concerning him. Yet not by a hair’s breadth will he, if he knows it, transgress any scriptural law. (In his after treatise “On Divorce,” how well can be read between the lines the meditations and conclusions of this period, and chiefly the fact that, in deciding upon a second marriage, he in no wise admitted that Elizabeth Griswold was not still his wife, although so held from him that he might lawfully take another, although under the circumstances a lesser, wife.1)

1 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, 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.

Oppose this unpropitious plan as he may, the son, whose influence has hitherto been paramount, cannot prevail to weaken his father’s resolution. It is the old and frequent glamour that has bound men and women. in a spell from the beginning, making them blind to what others see, and causing them to see that to which others are blind, in the object of their choice. The fact that Mary returns John, Jr.’s, pronounced opposition to the marriage with consequent aversion to the spirited youth, does not necessarily injure her standing with the father. There is but one person for whom favoritism on her part is absolutely necessary. As is usual in such cases, the matter goes on, despite all opposition. He who has so often borne to his mother the tale of his father’s unfaltering fidelity, must now acquaint her with this sudden engagement. To the young, the new loves of older people are foolishness. But, in this case, there is still another reason for John, Jr.’s, opposition to this mid-life romance; it is sadly interfering with a very natural intention of his own.

With his usual habit of unhesitatingly executing a plan as soon as it is fully determined upon, John Rogers improves the opportunity offered by the session of the County Court in New London, to present himself with Mary before that assembly (June 6), where they take each other, in the sight and hearing of all, as husband and wife; he, furthermore, stating his reason for marrying her outside the form prescribed by the colony, to which form he declares he attaches no value, since it was not sufficient to secure his first wife to him, although no valid cause was presented for the annulment of that approved ceremony. To fully make this a well-authenticated marriage, he gallantly escorts Mary to the house of the Governor (Mr. Winthrop) and informs him that he has taken this young woman for his wife. The governor politely wishes him much joy.1.

1 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.

Much as this second marriage might be lamented, from several points of view, and much trouble as it brought upon both Mary and John, Jr., by their irreconcilable disagreement, to say nothing of the perplexities and sorrows which it inflicted upon John Rogers himself, it is scarcely to be regretted by his biographer; since it brings into bold prominence a striking, and wonderfully rare, characteristic of this remarkable man, viz. : the most reverent and careful deference to every known law of God, combined with total indifference to any law of man not perfectly agreeing with the laws of God.  Evidently, what the most august assembly of men that could be gathered, or the most lofty earthly potentate, might think, say or do, would to him be lighter than a feather, if such thought, speech or act did not accord with the divine laws

1700.

By some agreement the house at Mamacock, cattle on the place, and other farm property, are under the joint ownership of John, Sr., and John, Jr.; the one has as much right to the house and the farm stock as the other. It now appears that the junior partner has himself been intending to furnish a mistress for the house at Mamacock. In January, 1700, seven months after the marriage of his father, he brings home his bride and is forced to place her in the awkward position of one of two mistresses. The young woman who now enters upon this highly romantic and gravely dramatic scene is one with whom John Rogers, Sr., can find no fault, being none other than his niece, Bathsheba, daughter of his faithful and beloved sister of the same name.

In spite of the difficulties sure to ensue, John, Sr., cannot but welcome this favorite niece to Mamacock. Not so with Mary. Whatever estimable and attractive qualities the latter may possess, here is a situation calculated to prove whether or not she is capable of the amount of passion and jealousy that has so often transformed a usually sensible and agreeable woman into the semblance of a Jezebel. The birth of a son to Mary, at this trying period, does not better the situation. Even so courageous a man as John Rogers might well stand appalled at the probable consequences of this venturesome marriage. When he brought Mary home and directed his servants to obey her as their mistress,l he in no wise calculated upon her being thus, even partially, set aside. He stands manfully by her, as best he may, though with the evident intention that she shall refrain from any abuse of his son’s rights in the case.

Although Mary is fined 40s. by the County Court in June, for the birth of her child, it is not declared illegitimate by the usual form, the authorities being nonplussed by the fact she and John Rogers so publicly took each other as husband and wife. She is not called upon to declare who is the child’s father, nor is the latter charged with its maintenance, as in cases of illegitimacy. Evidently, John Rogers did not expect any court action, in the case of so public a ceremony. He declines to pay a fine so disgraceful to his wife and child, and appeals to the Superior Court. The court decides that, since the fine was not accompanied by other due forms of law, it is invalid, but refers the matter to the future consideration of the County Court, which results in no further action in regard to this child.

Mary is also summoned before this same June court and fined 10s., “for her wicked and notorious language to John Rogers, Jr.,” evidently on complaint of the latter. In this crisis, her husband presents himself at the court, partly in her defense and partly in that of his son. He calls attention to a mark upon her face, which he says she declares to have been inflicted by the hand of his son John, during his own absence from home, and that upon this account “she has become so enraged as to threaten the life of somebody, as she” “has done before from time to time,” and he is “fearful that if God or man do not prevent it,” 1 serious consequences may follow. John, Jr., is fined 10s. on this evidence of his father. Although the injury to Mary, as indicated by the fine, is nothing serious as a wound, yet it proves how far the young man lost self-control in this instance. John Rogers, Sr., objects to the fine imposed upon Mary under these circumstances, but his statement before the court is evidently intended not only as a defense of his son, but as a check upon herself.

[There is the evidence of a no more partial witness than Peter Pratt that John Rogers never complained, outside his own home, of the domestic troubles resulting from this marriage. In the above instance, he was compelled, by the action of his son, to testify, both in Mary's defense and in excuse of his son. Upon this court record and affidavit is founded Miss Caulkins' statement that appeal was made to the court to "quell domestic broils" arising from this marriage. It is to the advantage of this history that the family affairs of John Rogers were in this instance forced before the public, since we may observe the manner in which the father and husband endeavors to secure an impartial administration of justice, and immunity of anyone from harm.]

However this marriage and its consequences may figure upon the printed page of a less primitive period, they appear not to lessen respect for this remarkable man in the eyes of his followers, although these followers are persons of the highest moral character. His blameless life as a single man for the last twenty-five years, and his avowed reasons for taking another wife in the manner he has, are known to all. Moreover, they find no word of God in condemnation.

In this year, John Rogers publishes, in pamphlet form, an account of the dispute agreed upon between himself and Mr. Saltonstall, telling the particulars of that great extortion. (Would that a copy of this might yet come to the light!)

1702.

In September, 1702, the County Court have a good opportunity to exercise the “after consideration” recommended by the Superior Court in 1700, which they improve by dealing with Mary, after the birth of her second child, exactly as they are accustomed to deal with an unmarried woman. Her presentment is in exactly the same wording, a part of which calls upon her to declare under oath, before the court, the name of the father of her child. To prevent their carrying out this form, John Rogers is there in court, with his six-months-old girl baby in his arms, to save it from this disgrace. He has given Mary directions how to proceed, in order to supplement his plan of breaking up the intended procedure. If she refuse to take the oath and to declare John Rogers to be the father of her child, the court will be baffied.

Being ordered to take the oath, she is silent, as her husband has enjoined, while he declares to the court that this her child in his arms is his own. The court knows, as well as the man before them, that his first marriage has not been annulled for any legal cause; that he had reason to refuse a repetition of the ceremony. But while those who make and administer laws may be allowed to ignore them with impunity, lesser people must abide by them; least of all must this man escape, who has imperilled the ecclesiasticism of the land. They threaten Mary with stripes, if she coninue her refusal to take the oath. She looks from the judge to the man who stands, so earnest and anxious, with the babe in his arms, bidding her not to take the oath, declaring that, if she obey him, he will shield her from harm. She knows he will do all that he can to protect her; but she has seen marks of the stripes upon his own back; she knows how he has sat for hours in the stocks, and been held for weary years in prison. Can he rescue her from the stripes?

He sees her yielding and pleads with her, pleads that she will save their child from this dishonor. The court sternly repeats the threat. Again he promises to defend her, in case she will obey him; but declares that, if she yield, branding his child as base-born, herself as common, and himself a villain, he needs must hesitate, hereafter, to own her as his wife.

She sees the court will not be trifled with. She knows that John Rogers uses no idle words. Yet will it not be safer to brave his displeasure than that of the court? She takes the oath, and declares John Rogers to be the father of her child. The cloud grows dark upon the father’s face. He folds his branded child against his heart and goes his way. All this he risked to hold his first love first, in seeming as in truth; has risked and lost.

The court proceeds as usual in cases of illegitimacy, pronouncing John Rogers the father of the child, and ordering that he pay 2s. 6d. per week towards its maintenance, until it is four years of age. Mary is allowed until the end of the following month to pay the usual fine of 40s., in case of non-payment of which she shall receive ten stripes on the naked body. In the meantime, she is to be detained in prison. Will John Rogers own his child to be illegitimate by paying this fine? By no means.

1703.

To now take Mary back (even if so allowed by the authorities – Miss Caulkins states that Mary was threatened by this court with heavy penalties if she returned to John Rogers. Although the evidence of this has escaped our notice, Miss Caulkins doubtless came across such evidence.)  would be to brand any other children in the same manner. To marry her by the prescribed form would be to acknowledge these two children to be illegitimate. Yet there is one thing that can be done, and must be done speedily. Mary must be rescued from the prison and thus saved from the lash. There are but two in all this region who will risk an attempt like that. They are John Rogers and his son. Mary escapes to Block Island.

After a safe period has elapsed, Mary is returned from Block Island to New London. Her children are placed with her, somewhere in the town, to give the more effect to her Petition to the General Court, which is presented early in May. It is a long and pathetic document (still to be seen in ” Book of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in the State Library, at Hartford), narrating the manner of her marriage to John Rogers; his taking her home and “ordering his servants to be conformable and obedient” to her; the trouble they had, “especially myself,” on account of the displeasure of John, Jr., at the marriage; a description of her presentment at court for her second child; her compliance with the court’s importunity, although her husband stood there “with it in his arms,” and how the result had made their children “base-born,” by which her “husband” says he is “grossly abused;” since “he took me in his heart and declared me so to be his wife before the world, and so owned by all the neighbors.” She beseeches that the sentence of the court be annulled; so that, “we may live together as husband and wife lawful and orderly,” “that the blessing of God be upon us, and your Honor, for making peace and reconciliation between us, may have an everlasting reward.” Dated in “New London, May I2, 1703.”

The court takes no notice of this appeal. Mary is returned to Block Island and the children to Mamacock. Proof will appear, however, that she is not forgotten nor neglected. Even after her marriage to another man, and years after this hopeless separation, she will say nothing but good of him who first called her his wife and acted faithfully towards her a husband’s part.

[Miss. Caulkins states that, some months before this period, John Rogers "made an almost insane attempt" to regain his former wife Elizabeth, wife of Matthew Beckwith. This statement is founded upon a writ against John Rogers on complaint of Matthew Beckwith (Jan. 1702-3), accusing John Rogers of laying hands on Elizabeth, declaring her to be his wife and that he would have her in spite of Matthew Beckwith. The historian should ever look below the mere face of things. For more than twenty-five years, John Rogers has known that Elizabeth, married or unmarried, would not return to him, pledged as he was to his chosen cause. He is, at this particular date, not yet fully separated from Mary, but holding himself ready to take her back, in case a petition to the General Court should by any possibility result favorably. This and another complaint of Matthew Beckwith  the latter in June, 1703  - to the effect that he was "afraid of his life of John Rogers" indicate some dramatic meeting between John Rogers and "Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold," in the presence of Matthew Beckwith, the incidents attendant upon which have displeased the latter and led him to resolve that John Rogers shall be publicly punished for assuming to express any ownership in his, Matthew Beckwith's, wife.

This "afraid of my life" is a common expression, and was especially so formerly, by way of emphasis. Matthew Beckwith could not have been actually afraid of his life in regard to a man whose principles did not allow of the slightest show of physical force in dealing with an opponent. Although the court record says that John Rogers "used threatening words against Matthew Beckwith," on presentation by Matthew Beckwith's complaint, this does not prove any intention of physical injury.

Any meeting between John Rogers and Elizabeth Griswold could not fail of being dramatic. What exact circumstances were here involved is unknown; what attitude was taken by the woman, when these two men were at the same time in her presence, it is impossible to determine. But it is in no way derogatory to the character of John Rogers, that in meeting this wife of his youth, he gives striking proof of his undying affection. Ignoring her marriage to the man before him, forgetful, for the time being, even of Mary, blind to all save the woman he loves above all, he lays his hand upon Elizabeth, and says she is, and shall be, his. Under such circumstances, Matthew Beckwith takes his revenge in legal proceedings. When summoned before the court, John Rogers defends his right to say that Matthew Beckwith's wife  so-called  is still his own, knowing full well the court will fine him for contempt, which process follows (County Court Record).]

John Rogers is fifty-five years of age at this date, and Matthew Beckwith sixty-six. Elizabeth is about fifty.

In this year, a fine of 10s. is imposed upon Samuel Beebe (Seventh Day Baptist) for ploughing on the first day of the week (County Court Record). Without doubt the Rogerenes (Seventh Day Baptists also) have done the same thing. At this period John Rogers may do whatever he pleases of this sort on the first day of the week. Nearly four years of imprisonment in Hartford jail, the little book “sold up and down” the colony, and many a tale narrated of his bravery and sufferings in the cause of religious liberty, have won for him such popular sympathy that those who aid and abet ecclesiastical rule in the state councils, are not as yet venturing to resume stringent proceedings against the Rogerenes. The signal failure to secure a promise of “good behavior” from the Rogerene leader is also a prominent factor in the situation. Although there is no sign that Capt. James Rogers and his wife have receded from their nonconformity, their son, James, Jr., has married a member of the Congregational church and taken the half-way covenant. He is prominent in the community and has political ambitions, the attainment of which would be impossible for one of a nonconformist persuasion. To have won this talented young man, must be counted a signal victory by Mr. Saltonstall. Samuel, son of Samuel, has also married a member of the Congregational church. He is continuing the bakery on its old scale, has landed interests in the neighboring country, and is surveyor for the town of New London.

Samuel, son of Joseph, now of Westerly, has become a member of the Congregational church, while his older brother James, an enterprising young man, is of the Baptist persuasion.

James Smith, son of Bathsheba, is a close follower of his uncle John, although his sister Elizabeth (married to William Camp) is a member of the Congregational church, in which her children are baptized.

During the respite from graver cares, John Rogers has enough to busy him at Mamacock, outside of his duties as preacher and pastor, in caring for the place (in unison with John, Jr.) and other business interests, making shoes, writing books, and attending to the welfare and training of his two little children, to whom he must be both father and mother. John and Bathsheba have a third child now. So here are five little ones in the home at Mamacock. And there is Mary at Block Island. She came from across the sea, and is likely to have only the one friend in America.

In this eventful year, John Rogers visits Samuel Bownas, a Quaker who is detained in jail at Hempstead, L.I., on a false accusation.

Through the whole of a long conversation with the Quaker (narrated by the latter in his Journal), he makes no reference to Mary, the prominent figure in this period of his history. It is not his purpose to reveal to outsiders that, although he and Mary are separated, he has not resigned her to her fate.

Mr. Bownas states that John Rogers is “chief elder of that Society called by other people Quaker Baptists, as imagining (though falsely) that both in their principles and doctrines they are one with us; whereas they differed from us in these material particulars, viz.: about the seventh day Sabbath, in use of water in baptism to grown persons, using the ceremony of bread and wine in communion, and also of anointing the sick with oil; nor did they admit of the light of truth or manifestation of the Spirit but only to believers, alleging Scripture for the whole.”

Upon this latter point, Mr. Bownas and his visitor have a long discussion. On any subject but the Quaker doctrines, Mr. Bownas appears not particularly interested, for which reason he does not furnish much information in regard to the part of the conversation relating to John Rogers’ sufferings for conscience’ sake, which he avers to have been a portion of the converse, and which would have been more edifying to many than the doctrinal views of the Quakers so fully expounded to John Rogers, which are presented to the reader through this account of their conversation.

John Rogers is quoted as describing the manner in which the young people in his Society are trained in knowledge and study of the Scriptures, and stating that women “gifted by the Spirit” are encouraged to take part in their meetings.

Of the Rogerenes, Mr. Bownas says: “They bore a noble testimony against fighting, swearing, vain compliments and the superstitious observation of days.”

Although John Rogers, in this narration, is represented as fluent in speech, he is also shown capable of preserving complete silence, allowing a person who is presenting views exactly the opposite of his own to go on uninterrupted, rather than present counter views to no purpose. He is also shown ready to concede much to the Quaker, expresses no annoyance at the other’s very positive stand, and even admits possible mistakes on his own part.

In short, the picture given of John Rogers by the Quaker, although less particular than could be desired, is that of a genial, friendly man, discussing questions with great fairness, and without excitement. When he requests Mr. Bownas, if he ever sees Edmund Edmundson, to convey to him his sincere sorrow for having argued against his views that night at Hartford, the natural gentleman shows plainly in the man. Possibly, his own opinions on the subject of that discussion may have changed.

1705.

There is still a refreshing respite from persecution, beyond the minister’s rates and minor prosecutions carried on by the town magistrates (of which latter there is so seldom any clear view), and no attempt to disturb any of the meetings of the Congregational church.

In this year, John Rogers publishes his book entitled “An Epistle to the Church called Quakers.” This work, while heartily assenting to many of the Quaker doctrines, is an earnest and logical appeal to these people against the setting aside of such express commands of Christ as the ceremony of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In this same year he issues “The Midnight Cry” from the same press (William Bradford, New York).

John Rogers The Midnight Cry" 1705

Midnight Cry 2

At this time, as for some five years previous, a youth by the name of Peter Pratt is a frequent inmate of the family at Mamacock. This is none other than the son of Elizabeth Griswold by her second husband. Elizabeth could not keep her son John from fellowship with his father, and it appears that she cannot keep from the same fellowship her son by Peter Pratt. This is not wholly explainable by the fact that Peter admires and is fond of his half-brother, John. Were not the senior master at Mamacock genial and hospitable, Peter Pratt’s freedom at this house could not be of the character described (by himself), neither would he be likely (as is, by his own account, afterwards the case) to espouse the cause of John Rogers, Sr., so heartily as to receive baptism at his hands, and go so far in that following as to be imprisoned with other Rogerenes.

According to his own statement, this young man was present at the County Court in 1699, when John Rogers appeared there with Mary Ransford and took her for his wife. He seems at that time to have been studying law in New London, and making Mamacock his headquarters. He had every opportunity to know and judge regarding John Rogers at that exact period. To this young man must also have been known the particulars which led to the complaint of Matthew Beckwith, his step-father, concerning John Rogers.  Had Peter Pratt disapproved of either of these occurrences it would have prevented his affiliation with this man. Evidently, nothing known or heard by him concerning John Rogers, Sr., has availed to diminish his respect for him or prevent a readiness to listen to his teachings. (He admits that at this period he “knew no reason why John Rogers was not a good man.”)

We have seen proof, by statement of Mr. Bownas, that in 1703 John Rogers was still a faithful observer of the Seventh Day Sabbath. But in the Introduction to his Epistle to the Seventh Day Baptists, written, according to date of publication, about 1705, he states that by continual study of the New Testament, he has become convinced that Christ Himself is the Sabbath of His church, having nailed to His cross all the former ordinances (Col. xi, 14), that, therefore, adherence to the Jewish Sabbath, or any so-called sacred day, is out of keeping with the new dispensation. “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath.”  (Col. xi, 16.) He also states that as soon as he came to this conclusion he gave up the Seventh Day Sabbath and wrote this Epistle to his former brethren of that church.

After the above conclusion on the part of John Rogers and his Society, the Rogerenes begin to hold their meetings on the first day of the week, in conformity with the common custom. Yet, much as they might enjoy making this a day of entire rest, were there not an “idolatrous” law declaring that sacred which was not so declared in the Scriptures, they still consider it their duty to bear sufficient witness against the assumption of its sanctity.

While the Rogerenes were preaching New Testament doctrines antagonistic to the state church, on Saturday, when the rest of the world were busy with secular affairs, not many outsiders would be likely to attend their meetings; but now that these doctrines are preached and taught on Sunday, in public meetings of the Rogerenes, many more are likely to attend these services, and so become interested in this departure, despite the fine that might be risked by such attendance.

Yet there are no indications that any new measures have been adopted, on account of this change on the part of the Rogerenes. They are at least ceasing labor for that portion of the day devoted to religious services, which may possibly appear a hopeful indication, to the view of the ecclesiastical party. At all events, by the silence of the court records and the testimony of John Bolles, the Rogerenes are not now being persecuted as formerly, and we shall find these peaceful conditions existing for some years to come.

1721
A few months later than the events narrated in previous portions of this chapter, occurs the great smallpox pestilence in Boston. At this time, John Rogers is having published in that city his book entitled “A Midnight Cry,” and also his “Answer to R. Wadsworth.” If he has need to go to Boston, on business connected with these publications, it is certain, by the character of the man, that he will not hesitate, but rather hasten, that he may,in the general panic there, render some assistance. Even if he has no business occasion for such a visit, it will not matter, provided he judges the Master’s command to visit the sick calls him to Boston. Since his conversion in 1674, he has made a practice of visiting those afflicted with this contagion so shunned by others, yet has never been attacked by the disease. He believes the promise that God will preserve His faithful children to the
full age of threescore years and ten unless called to offer up their lives in martyrdom, and that when, at last, in His good pleasure. He shall call them, it matters not by what disease or what accident He takes them hence. Surely death could come in no better way than in some especial obedience to His command.

Fast and far is spread the alarm that John Rogers, just returned from his foolhardy visit to Boston, is prostrated at Mamacock with the dread contagion. There are in the house, including himself, thirteen persons. Adding the servants who live in sepaate houses on the place, it is easy to swell the number to “upwards of twenty.” The large farm, spreading upon both sides of the road, is itself a place of isolation. On the east is a broad river, separating it from the uninhabited Groton bank. On the north is wooded, uninhabited, Scotch Cap.* There is possibly a dwelling within half a mile at the northwest. A half-mile to the south is the house of John Bolles. What few other neighbors there may be, are well removed, and there are dweUings enough on the farm to shelter all not required for nursing the sick.

Had this illness occurred in the very heart of a crowded city, greater alarm or more stringent measures could not have ensued. There is a special meeting of Governor and Council at New Haven, October 14, on receipt of the news that John Rogers is ill at Mamacock with the smallpox, and that “on account of the size of the family, upwards of twenty persons, and the great danger of many persons going thither and other managements” (doubtless referring to scriptural methods of restoration and precaution) “there is great Uability of the spread of the infection in that neighborhood.” It is enacted that “effectual care be taken to prevent any intercourse between members of the family and other persons, also that three or four persons be impressed to care for the sick.”

There are a number of meetings of the Governor and Council over this matter (for full accounts of which see the published records of the General Court of Connecticut). Were it not for the court records, coming generations would be at loss to know whether the members of the family themselves, also John Bolles, John Waterhouse, John Culver and their wives, and others of the Rogerenes held firmly to their principles in this crisis, or whether they stood willingly and fearfully aloof, not daring to put their faith and theory to so dangerous and unpopular a test. Fortunately for Rogerene history, the testimony furnished by records of the special sittings of the Governor and Council on this occasion, fully establishes not only the fidelity of the Rogerenes to New Testament teachings, but also their attachment and loyalty to their leader.

Three days after the official order that every relative and friend be banished from his bedside, and so with no one near him but the immunes pressed into the ‘service, John Rogers yields up his life
unto Him whom he has faithfully striven to obey, fearing not what man or any earthly chance might do to him. Thus dies John, the beloved and trusted son of James Rogers, and the last of that
family.

John Rogers departed this Hfe October 17th, the anniversary day of his marriage to Elizabeth Griswold. She cannot fail to note that fact, when the news reaches her. She is less than
woman if, in the hour of that discovery, she does not go aside to weep.

Children

1. Elizabeth Rogers

Elizabeth’s husband Stephen Prentice was born 26 Dec 1666 in New London, New London, CT. His parents were John Prentice and Hester Nichols. Stephen died 1758 in New London, New London, CT.

In 1685, Elizabeth, daughter of John Rogers, now fourteen years of age, is, at her own request, allowed by her mother and the Griswolds to return to her father; she who left him a child of three years. She is still the only daughter of her mother, and, by affirmation of both her brothers, John Rogers, 2d, and Peter Pratt: a most lovable character.

Her free committal of this girl child to the care and training of John Rogers, gives proof conclusive that “Elizabeth, daughter of Matthew Griswold,” however she may disapprove of her former husband’s religious course, knows well of the uprightness of his character and the kindness of his heart.

2. John Rogers Jr.

John’s first wife Bathsheba Smith was born in 1678 in New London, New London, CT. She was John’s first cousin. Her parents were Richard Smith and Bathsheba Rogers. Bathsheba died 13 Nov 1721 in East Lyme, New London, CT..

John’s second wife Elizabeth Dodge was born in 1676 in New London, CT. Her parents were Israel Dodge and [__?__]. Elizabeth died in 28 Jan 1723.

In May, 1684, Matthew Griswold and his daughter petition the General Court “for power to order and dispose of John Rogers, Jr., John Rogers still continuing in his evil practises,” which “evil practices” “were set forth, in the previous permission of the court regarding the continuance of the children of John Rogers with their mother, in these words: ” he being so hettridox in his opinion and practice.” Their request is granted, the youth “to be apprenticed by them to some honest man.”

John Rogers, Jr., is now barely ten years of age, and must be a forward youth to be apprenticed so young, unless we suppose this a mere device to put him under stricter control of his mother’s family. He has surely heard nothing in favor of his father from those among whom he has been reared, unless perhaps from his stepfather. Yet neither mother nor grandparents can keep his young heart from turning warmly towards the dauntless nonconformist at New London.

In 1688 John Rogers, Jr., although brought up in the house of Mr. Matthew Griswold and kept carefully from all Rogers contamination, works on the days upon which his father works, rests on the day when his father rests, and in all other ways follows his father’s lead.

Bathsheba Smith ardently adheres to the religious departure instituted by her father and her brothers. Her son, James Smith, is fifteen years of age at this date. He and his cousin John, Jr., are well agreed to follow on in the faith. Among the children of his aunt Bathsheba there is one dearest of all to John, Jr.; this is Bathsheba Smith the younger.

In 1695 at this same Superior Court session that his father was convicted, John Rogers, Jr., and William Wright are charged with having recently assisted in the escape from the Hartford prison of a man, “Matthews,” who was condemned to death. William Wright is charged with assisting Matthews to escape from prison, and John Rogers, Jr., is accused of conveying him out of the colony. He appears to have been soon recaptured, and is again in prison at the time these charges are preferred. This is not the only instance in which John Rogers, Jr., is found running great risk and displaying great courage in a cause which he deems right before God, however criminal in the judgment of men.

For assisting in this escape, William Wright is to pay half the charges incurred in recapturing Matthews. For “abusing” Stonington meeting-house, for not acknowledging to have heard alleged conversations among the Rogerses and their confederates in regard to the burning of New London meeting-house, and for having made his escape from justice (by which he appears to have recently escaped from jail ), he is to be “sorely whipped” and returned to Hartford prison.

John Rogers, Jr., for being “conspicuously guilty of consuming New London meeting house” (although no slightest evidence of such guilt is recorded), “for having been in company with some who held a discourse of burning said meeting house” (although no such discourse has been proven), and “that he did encourage the Indian to fly far enough” (this appears to refer to William Wright’s “escape from justice”), and “for being active in conveying Matthews out of the colony,” is placed under bond for trial. It is shown that his uncle, Samuel Rogers, has appeared and given bail for him. (There is no after record to show that such trial ever took place, and no slightest mention of any further proceeding in the matter.) This act of Samuel Rogers is one of the frequent evidences of cordial friendship between John, Jr., and his uncle.

Bathsheba, for “devising and promoting” the firing of the meeting-house, and the “defiling” of that at Stonington, is to pay a fine of £10 or be severely whipped. This fine is probably paid by Samuel Rogers. It certainly would not be paid by her. The sole evidence against John, Jr., and Bathsheba is in the character of vague rumors of indignant discourse relating to the recent moves against John Rogers, Sr. No proof of any complicity is recorded.

John, Jr., and Bathsheba are freed, but William Wright remains in Hartford jail with his master (and will continue there for three years to come), not for burning the meeting-house, which is not proven against him, nor for defiling that at Stonington (on suspicion of which he has already been punished with the stripes); not (save in part) for the charges incurred by the rescue of Matthews, but (as will be evident three years later) for his averred determination not to submit to the law regarding servile labor on the first day of the week.

In 1697, the General Court appoint a committee to revise the laws of the colony and certain “reverent elders” to advise the persons chosen in this affair, and also “to advise this court in what manner they ought to bear testimony against the irregular actions of John Rogers in printing and publishing a book reputed scandalous and heretical.”

John Rogers, Jr., is now twenty-three years of age, a young man of brilliant parts and daring courage. Since he is the printer and circulator of this book, he is probably also its author. In this same month of May, “John Rogers, Jr.,” is “bound in a bond of £40″ “to appear at court” (Superior) “to answer what may be objected against him for bringing a printed book or pamphlet into this colony which was not licensed by authority, and for selling the same up and down the colony, as also for other misdemeanors ”  the nature of the latter not indicated. No complaint being presented against him, he is dismissed.

[Could a copy of this pamphlet be found, great light might be thrown upon this stormy period, by revelation of the full circumstances leading up to the desperate entry of John Rogers into the meeting-house in 1694, the plot of Mr. Saltonstall and the "Remonstrance in Behalf of Peaceable Dissenters."

That this book, sold "up and down the colony" by John Rogers, Jr., was for the enlightenment of the people at large regarding the cause, and lack of cause, for the long imprisonment and cruel treatment of his father, with representation of the case for the non-conformists, can scarcely be doubted. We can picture this talented and manly youth going from place to place, eagerly seeking and finding those who will listen to his eloquent appeal to buy and read this tale of wrong and woe, in the almost single-handed struggle for religious liberty in Connecticut.]

1. Peter Pratt Jr.

Around 1705, as for some five years previous, a youth by the name of Peter Pratt is a frequent inmate of the family at Mamacock. This is none other than the son of Elizabeth Griswold by her second husband. Elizabeth could not keep her son John from fellowship with his father, and it appears that she cannot keep from the same fellowship her son by Peter Pratt. This is not wholly explainable by the fact that Peter admires and is fond of his half-brother, John. Were not the senior master at Mamacock genial and hospitable, Peter Pratt’s freedom at this house could not be of the character described (by himself), neither would he be likely (as is, by his own account, afterwards the case) to espouse the cause of John Rogers, Sr., so heartily as to receive baptism at his hands, and go so far in that following as to be imprisoned with other Rogerenes.

According to his own statement, this young man was present at the County Court in 1699, when John Rogers appeared there with Mary Ransford and took her for his wife. He seems at that time to have been studying law in New London, and making Mamacock his headquarters. He had every opportunity to know and judge regarding John Rogers at that exact period. To this young man must also have been known the particulars which led to the complaint of Matthew Beckwith, his step-father, concerning John Rogers.  Had Peter Pratt disapproved of either of these occurrences it would have prevented his affiliation with this man. Evidently, nothing known or heard by him concerning John Rogers, Sr., has availed to diminish his respect for him or prevent a readiness to listen to his teachings. (He admits that at this period he “knew no reason why John Rogers was not a good man.”)

Sources:

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14039914M/The_Rogerenes

http://wellsgenealogy.wordpress.com/2010/05/

http://www.roxburynewjersey.com/rogerenes.htm

Posted in Dissenter, History, Place Names | Tagged | 2 Comments

Albert Miner – An Original Mormon

Albert Miner (1809 – 1848) is the grandson of Sgt Elihu MINER Jr. and the first cousin of  Philo Sidney MINER Sr.   Alex’s 4th great grandfather, one of 32 in this generation.  I thought he was Philo’s next door neighbor in the 1840 Kinsman, Ohio census, but that may have been another Albert Miner.

Albert was Joseph Smith’s bodyguard in Kirtland, Ohio in the 1830’s and was with him when he was killed in Illinois in 1844.

Albert Miner was born 31 Mar 1809 in Jefferson County, New York. His parents were Azel Miner and Sylvia Munson.  He married Tamma Dufree 9 Aug 1831 in New London, Huron, Ohio. Albert died 3 Jan 1848. in Iowaville, Iowa.

Albert Miner Grave Marker — Albert died in Iowa on the Mormon migration, but his memorial is in Springville, Utah where his wife and children settled.

Tamma Dufree was born 6 March 1813 in Lenox, Madison, New York. Her parents were Edmund Durfee (wiki) and Magdalena Pickle. After Albert died,  took the family by wagon train from Iowa to Salt Lake, departing in June and arriving in October 1850.  Shortly after her arrival, she married to Enos Curtis.

Tamma Durfee

Tamma Durfee as a younger woman

They moved with their combined family to  a farm owned by Lorenzo Snow in Willard, Utah.  Her oldest son,  Orson, who bad taken the lead in their  our doings, died the following March, 1851. It was in this month and shortly after Orson’s death, the family moved to Springville and located on Block 6 Plat A. They at once began plowing and planting grain and our crop was the first to mature in Springville.  Tamma married 3rd, to Enos’ son John White Curtis in April 1857. Tamma died 30 Jan 1885 in Springville, Utah, Utah leaving 9 children, 77 grandchildren, and 17 great grandchildren.

Children of  Albert and Tamma:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Polly Miner 1 May 1832
New London, Huron, Ohio
Fifth wife of Dominicus Carter, a mormon 15 May 1896
Provo, Utah
2. Orson Miner 22 Oct 1833
Kirtland, Ohio
5 Mar 1851
Willard, Utah
3. Moroni Miner 4 Jun 1835
Kirtland, Ohio
Nancy Elizabeth Chase
4 Feb 1861
14 Aug 1935
Springville, Utah
Lived to 100, A healthy Mormon lifestyle?
4. Sylvia Miner 18 Jun 1836
Kirtland, Ohio
1 Oct 1838
From the trip from Kirtland, OH  to Far West, MO
5. Mormon Miner 26 Sep 1837
Kirtland, Ohio
Pheobe Emeline Curtis
24 Feb 1861
.
Elvira Euphrasia Cox
Oct 1906
30 Mar 1918Fairview Pioneer Cemetery, Fairview, Utah
6. Matilda Miner 12 Jan 1840
Lima, Illinois
 27 Sep 1909
7. Alma Lindsay Miner 7 Sep 1841
Nauvoo, Illinois
Mary Housekeeper
.
Caroline Jane Neilson
26 Mar 1868
.
Christina Ida Stephenson
13 Feb 1912
Fariview, Sanpete, Utah
8. Don Carlos Smith Miner 12 Jun 1843
Nauvoo, Illinois
Anna Eliza Holden
.
Delia Davis
8 Feb 1902
9. Melissa Miner 5 Mar 1846
Nauvoo, Illinois
1 Oct 1846

Tamma’s Martyr Father

Tamma’s father Edmund Durfee (Durfy) Sr. (October 3, 1788 – November 15, 1845) was an American settler and early member of the Latter Day Saint movement who is remembered as a martyr by Latter-day Saints.

Born in Tiverton, Rhode Island, Durfee was a farmer, carpenter, and millwright. He married Magdalena Pickle, and they later became the parents of thirteen children. The Durfees joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1830s in Ohio. After being driven as religious refugees from Mormon settlements in Ohio and Missouri (see Missouri Executive Order 44), they moved to Morley’s Settlement in Hancock County, Illinois, about 25 miles due south of Nauvoo, Illinois.

In September 1845, a mob of anti-Mormon arsonists rushed upon Morley’s Settlement. They burned down the Durfee home and, shortly thereafter, burned down the homes of dozens of other Mormon families.  The morning following, Solomon Hancock sent word of the burnings to President Brigham Young in Nauvoo:

“Dear Brother, I will agreeably to your request send you some of the particulars of what has been done. On the other side of the branch, it is a scene of desolation. On Wednesday the 10th all of a sudden, the mob rushed upon Edmund Durfee and destroyed some property, and set fire to both of his buildings. . . On the morning of the 11th they again set fire to the buildings of Edmund Durfee, and fired upon some of his children without hitting them; they then proceeded to the old shop of Father Morley’s and set fire to both his shops. In the afternoon the mob came on again and set fire to Father Whiting’s chair shop, Walter Cox, Cheney Whiting, and Azariah Tuttle’s houses. At evening they retreated back again. . . Last evening they set on fire three buildings, near Esq. Walker’s; and this morning we expect them to renew their work of destruction . . . The mob is determined to destroy us. The mob have burned all houses on the south side of the branch, and left last evening for Lima; said they would return this morning as soon as light, and swear they will sweep through and burn everything in Nauvoo.”

This illustration, based on C. C. A. Christensen’s painting, depicts the Burning of Morley’s Settlement.

After losing their home to the arsonists, the Durfees, with other homeless residents, fled to Nauvoo for safety. Edmund and other men returned to Morley’s Settlement to harvest their crops on November 15, 1845. They lodged with Solomon Hancock  in his unburned home about one-half mile northeast of Lima, Illinois. Late that evening, nightriders set fire to hay in the Hancock barnyard. Awakened, the Mormon men rushed outside to fight the fire. Edmund Durfee, who was age 57 at the time, was shot in the back and killed. Durfee’s attackers were identified and arrested, but never brought to trial, even though “their guilt was sufficiently apparent,” according to Illinois Governor Thomas Ford. Edmund was buried near his brother, James Durfee, in Nauvoo’s Parley Street Cemetery.

Durfee has since been described as “one of the most inoffensive men in the country.” “Some of the mob engaged in the tragic affair afterwards boasted that they had shot Durfee in order to win a wager of two gallons of whisky, that the stack had been set on fire to cause an alarm and draw the men out, and that by killing him they had won the whisky.” According to family lore, the murderer, Snyder boasted of what he had done and it was told some years after to a missionary traveling in that locality. Later, in a drunken row, Snyder was shot and the wound never healed, he actually rotted alive, with the stench so offensive that his friends forsook him, although he lingered for months before he died.

Taken from “The 1845 Burning of Morley’s Settlement and Murder of Edmund Durfee,” written by William G. Hartley. This illustration, based on C. C. A. Christensen’s painting, depicts the Burning of Morley’s Settlement. In her autobiography Tamma writes,

“After the Nauvoo Temple was completed the mobs became violent again. They threatened us and told us how they would kill and drive the Mormons out. They did kill many and others they drove from Lima. They shot my father Edmund Durfee and killed him instantly on 19 November 1845. He who had never done them any harm in his life but on the contrary had always taught them good principles of truth and uprightness and great and morality and industry all the days of his life. But before this they drove them all out of Father Morley’s Settlement, even those that were sick. They rolled by brother Nephi up in a bed and threw it outdoors when he was sick. They went to the oat stack and got two bundles of oats and put a brand of fire in them and threw them on top of the house and said they would be back the next morning. Father was trying to move and they came back and shot their guns and ran them all off. They plundered, made fires, burned houses, furniture and clothing looms, yarn, cloth, carpenter tools. Every wall burn to ashes, and the mob went from house to house driving them out, it made little difference if they were sick or well until every house in the town that a Mormon lived in was burnt.” x

Following his murder, Edmund’s family participated in the Latter-day Saints’ forced exodus from Nauvoo in 1846. Edmund’s widow, Magdalena, died during the hard journey near present-day Council Bluffs. His daughter, Tamma Durfee Miner, buried both her baby, Melissa, at Montrose, and her husband Albert Miner, in Iowaville, along the Mormon Trail. Eight Durfee children – Martha Durfee Stevens, Tamma Durfee Miner Curtis, Dolly Durfee Garner, Delana Durfee Dudley, Abraham Durfee, Jabez Durfee, Mary Durfee Carter, and Nephi Durfee – went west with the Latter-day Saints and settled in Utah.

Albert’s Story

Albert Miner was born on March 31, 1809 in Jefferson County, New York. He was the son (and fourth child) of Azel and Sylvia Munson Miner. In the year of 1815 Albert and his family moved to New London, Huron County, Ohio. (See Elihu MINER’s page for details of the The Firelands or Sufferers’ Lands tract located at the western end of the Connecticut Western Reserve )

From age seven Albert helped pioneer New London, Ohio. When he was eighteen years of age, his next younger sibling, Amos Dean Miner, with whom he felt a close relationship, died. Two years later Albert’s father also died.

Our next knowledge of Albert is at age 22, in 1831. It is the assessment of the young woman, Tamma Durfee, whom Albert was courting. When her family joined the newly organized Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter-day Saints in June 1831, Tamma purposely delayed her baptism until the good young man could know more about it as well. After Albert’s marriage to Tamma, 9 Aug  1831, she was baptized in Dec 1831, and Albert in Feb 1832.

In the winter of 1831 Albert was introduced to the Mormon church and to the gold
Bible. In April of 1831, Solomon Hancock  arrived in Ohio and started to preach to
the people. Solomon joined in with the Methodists and the Campbellites and
would preach in their meetinghouses. In May 1831 Tamma’s family was baptized
by Solomon Hancock. Tamma believed that the church was true, but was not
baptized until her father was leaving on his mission in December of that same year.

Albert’s family was not so eager to join the church. They had quite a lot to say
about the church, but it was not always in a positive manner. Albert was heard to
say on several occasions that “the more they talk, the quicker I will be baptized.”
(Voices From The Past: Diaries, Journals, and Autobiographies, BYU Press, 1980,
pg. 76). They must have really kept talking for he was baptized in February of
1832 and could hardly wait for a hole in the ice to be cut.

Map of LDS Movements 1830-1839

In 1833, Tamma and Albert followed their new church to it’s gathering place in Kirtland, Lake, Ohio.

Albert’s first child, Polly, was born 1 May 1832 in New London, Ohio. In May of 1833, Albert and his wife moved to Kirtland, Ohio. During these years at Kirtland they were able to participate in many of the glorious and devastating experiences of the church. Albert hauled stone every Saturday for the construction of the Kirtland Temple.  Temple building was still going on; and some of the brethren that came from great distances stayed until the next spring. Some stayed with the Miner family and received their endowments and were there to the dedication of the Temple in March 1836. Their narrations of the manifestations seen at the Temple by the Prophet Joseph and Oliver Cowdry when Moses and Silas revealed to them the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the North, and the committing of the dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham saying:  “that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed, etc.” .

Albert helped build Kirtland Temple

While in Kirtland, four more children were born: Orson, 22 Oct. 1833; Moroni, 4
June 1835; Sylvia, 18 June 1836 and Mormon on 26 Sep 1837. When Joseph
Smith blessed Moroni he said that “he should be as great as Moroni of old and the
people would flee unto him and call him blessed.” (Voices From The Past, BYU
Press, 1980, pg. 77). [Moroni lived to be a 100 years old].

During the Kirtland era, many charismatic experiences were reported, many involving visitations of angels or communication from God through stones. However, some Church members claimed to receive revelations that contradicted those received by Joseph Smith. He and several followers prayed about the issue, and Joseph recorded a series of revelations, which included a description of several real spiritual gifts, a statement that only Joseph Smith, as the Prophet, could receive new doctrines and commandments for the Church, and a warning that not all supernatural experiences come from God. This effort to balance charismatic experience with order and stability became a lasting characteristic of the Latter Day Saint Movement.

In 1837, Smith and Rigdon founded an “anti-bank” called the Kirtland Safety Society. When it failed, some 300 of the Kirtland membership became disillusioned, including a third of the church leadership. The result was the movement’s first major schism. A new organization led by Smith’s former secretary, Warren Parish, along with Martin Harris and others, vied for control of the church in Kirtland. Re-establishing the original “Church of Christ” name, these “reformed Latter Day Saints” took possession of the temple and excommunicated Smith and Rigdon. Smith and Rigdon relocated to Missouri and were followed there by hundreds of loyalists in a trek known as the “Kirtland Camp.”

Tamma’s family was part of the Kirtland Camp and  moved on to Missouri in the spring of 1837. In the spring of 1837, the Miner family was in Caldwell Co. Missouri, where they stayed that summer and fall. That fall, Albert became very ill. By January 1838, Albert was improved, so Tamma procured a sleigh, in which she made a bed for Albert, and they traveled eighty miles in four days to his mother’s home in New London, Ohio for a much needed recuperation. Albert seemed to feel better there so they did not return to Kirtland until May. It was hard to say goodbye to Albert’s mother, sisters, and brothers (Albert’s father had died in 1829).

In June 1838 the Miners sold their farm in Kirtland.  With the remaining balance, he and his family started for Far West, Missouri in the middle of June of 1838. They would travel until they were short of means and then they would stop and work until they had enough money to begin again.  All members of the Miner Family had become sick during this journey.They visited the Kirtland Camp and then went on to Missouri. They arrived in DeWitt in the latter part of August. The children were all sick and Tamma had been so sick that she could not walk. They stayed in DeWitt for one week while the entire family recovered from illnesses – except Sylvia, who did not recover and died about the first of Oct. 1838.

In the first part of September 1838 they arrived in Far West, Missouri. They were in Missouri at the time of the mob’s persecution. Tamma describes her feelings of this persecution in the following way. “Thus we were plundered, smitten, and driven from our homes, our lives threatened, and we were ill-treated on every side by our enemies -enemies to the truths of heaven. They would come one to five hundred right to our houses and nobody around but women and little children, take our men prisoners without any cause whatsoever – only because they were Mormons and believed in the truths of the Gospel. They wanted to know if we had any guns or pistols or ammunition or butcher knives and all such things. No one can describe the feelings of the saints and what they passed through. No tonguecan express the depredation — only those that experienced it and was an eye witness…..” ( Voices From The Past, BYU Press, 1980, pg. 78).

In 1838, Joseph Smith Jr., Sidney Rigdon and their loyalists left the former church headquarters of Kirtland and relocated to Far West. A brief leadership struggle left the former heads of the Missouri portion of the church — David WhitmerOliver CowderyWilliam Wines Phelps and others — excommunicated. Years later, many of this group of “dissenters” became part of the Whitmerite schism in the Latter Day Saint movement.

While the church was headquartered in Far West, Smith announced revelations that changed the name of the church to the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and initiated the “Law of Tithing.” Conflicts with non-Mormon settlers arose as the church began to plant colonies in the counties surrounding Caldwell. These escalated into what has been called the 1838 Mormon War. The perceived militant attitude adopted by the church caused some leaders, including Thomas B. Marsh, president of the Quorum of the Twelve, to break with Smith and Rigdon. This precipitated another schism which led to the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ, the Bride, the Lamb’s Wife by George M. Hinkle, who had been the Mormon commander of the Caldwell County militia.

As a result of the war, 2,500 Missouri militia troops were called out to put down the Mormon “rebellion.” Smith and other church leaders were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri and the majority of the Latter Day Saints were deprived of their property and expelled from the state.. As a result of the war, nearly all Mormons in Missouri, estimated at more than ten thousand, were forced to leave the state. Most of these refugees settled in or near what would become the city of Nauvoo, Illinois.

Albert and his family lived on Log Creek, six miles from Far West. They were there when the mob killed David W. Patten, took a lot of prisoners, and forced the Saints to lay down their arms.[Wikipedia story of Patten's death is different and tells of how he died in the Battle of Crooked River.]  Not long after their arrival to Far West the Miners and others found themselves without flour. A council was held by the saints and Albert was selected to go and get some flour. On his return he was captured by the mob and taken to their camp. After explaining the plight that his family and others were in, having no flour to cook with, the mob allowed him to deliver the flour, but only if one of the mob members accompanied him. After delivering the flour he was taken back to the mob’s camp and was held prisoner until they broke camp. After the mob took his best horse he was left with the other horse to get home with his wagon as best as he possibly could.

Tamma wrote in her autobiography:

“we were plundered, smitten and driven from our homes, our lives were threatened and were ill-treated on every side by our enemies – enemies to the truths of heaven. They would come one to five hundred right to our houses and nobody around but women and little children, take our men prisoners without any cause whatsoever only because they were Mormons and believed in the truths of the Gospel. They wanted to know if we had any guns or pistols or ammunition or butcher knives and all such things. No one can describe the feelings of the Saints and
what they passed through. No tongue can express the depredation – only those that experienced it and were eye witnesses when they came to our houses in this kind of way.”

In the fall of 1838 when the saints were being forced to leave under the exterminating order of Governor Boggs, Albert signed a pledge that they would not leave Missouri until every family had left Missouri. The men that were free on bail and had teams helped others to get to the Mississippi and then go back for their own families. Albert was one that had to take a load to the Mississippi River so his family didn’t get away until the first of April 1839.

Albert and his family crossed over to Quincy, went up the river to Lima and decided to stay there a short time.. A kind reception was extended to the Saints by the people of Quincy and much aid was given to them as many of the Saints werestarving. But the devil wasn’t dead yet. Some of the members would go to Lima and get drunk and come back swearing and tearing – enough to frighten men, let alone women and children.

In the 1840 censusPhilo Sydney MINER Jr. (1811 – 1890) was single and between wives in Kinsman, Trumbull, Ohio.  There is no record of an infant in his household so maybe the two year old Philo Jr. had been farmed out to another family better equipped to take care of a toddler.  Philo’s census record directly follows Albert C Miner.  Both Philo and Albert are listed by themselves and 20 to 30 years old.  I had thought that Philo’s next door neighbor was his cousin Albert Miner (1809 – 1848) who became one of the first Mormons, but no I’m not so sure.  It appears Albert and Tamma were 700 miles away in Lima, Illinois.   I haven’t figured out who else this Albert C Miner could be, but my closest guess is Albert Calvin Miner (b. 1815 or  1829) son of Calvin Miner and Keturah Nelson.

It was there that Matilda was born 12 January 1840 and the family stayed about one year. They got along the best that they could. Every fall and spring they drove thirty miles to Conference in Nauvoo, Illinois and then on the fourth of July to training. While there, on 7 September 1841 another son, Alma L. was born.

The next spring (1842) they sold what they had and bought a place four miles east of the Temple in Nauvoo. There they could go to meeting and be back home by night.

On 12 June 1843, another boy was born and they named him Don Carlos Smith. Albert helped in erecting the Nauvoo Temple and there he and his wife, Tamma, received their endowments. The temple was destroyed by tornado and fire in 1850.  A replica was rededicated in 2002.  After the Nauvoo Temple was completed the mobs became violent again. Albert and Tamma were in Nauvoo in 1844, when Joseph and Hyrum were martyred. Albert along with others had assisted in guarding the Prophet prior to being martyred at Carthage.

The conflict between Mormons and non-Mormons escalated into what is sometimes called the “Mormon War in Illinois.” Latter Day Saints in outlying areas were driven from their homes and gathered to Nauvoo for protection. The Illinois state legislature voted to revoke Nauvoo’s charter and the city began to operate extra-legally. At about this time, Nauvoo’s population peaked; it may have had as many as 12,000 inhabitants (and several nearly as large suburbs), rivaling Chicago, Illinois, whose 1845 population was about 15,000, and its suburbs. However, by the end of 1845, it became clear that no peace was possible, and Young and the Twelve negotiated a truce so that the Latter Day Saints could prepare to abandon the city. The winter of 1845-46 saw the enormous preparations for the Mormon Exodus across the Great Plains.

Daguerreotype of the city as it appeared  with the Nauvoo Temple in the background at the time of the Mormon exodus..

Albert was one of the men that traveled all night and day to get the families from Lima, Illinois that had been turned out of doors into the cold. He took a chill and was very ill for a long time. When his family was leaving Illinois Albert crossed the river ten times trying to get his family and his brother-in-law’s family out of Illinois. On 5 March 1846, a little girl named Melissa was born so Albert’s family remained for a while. In the spring the mob began to gather once a week and threaten to drive out what was left. The first of May, they moved to town, sold their place for a yoke of oxen and wagon thinking to start on in two or three weeks. But the mob gathered every week right on the public square close by their house.

In the fall of 1846 Albert, with his family, Edmond Durfee and his family, fourteen in number, and in one wagon owned by Albert, left Nauvoo, crossing the Mississippi River, landing near Montrose, Iowa in the fall of 1846. They stayed there two weeks – sleeping on the ground waiting for help (there were fourteen to one wagon). then They traveled for three days and arrived in Iowaville, where they resided until 1848. While enroute to Iowaville, on Oct, 5th, 1846, Bro. and Sister Miner were deeply grieved in the loss by death of their seven months old baby girl Melissa. The child was buried on the banks of the Des Moines River, under a big cottonwood tree.

After his family was settled in Iowaville Albert decided to go back to Ohio to see his family (to get them to join the church and/or say goodbye one last time before heading farther west). He started to walk back to the Mississippi River all alone and without any means (money) when after two or three miles he looked down and laying there on the ground was five dollars in silver. He arrived in Ohio finding his family all well, yet they would still not believe in the gospel. On May 17, 1847, after being gone ten weeks, he arrived back in Iowaville very homesick, tired and not feeling well.

Albert felt that after a little bit of rest he would recover, but he gradually grew worse until he passed away on January 3, 1848. Albert Miner passed away, leaving his wife and seven children (the oldest fourteen) to pursue their journey to Salt Lake City. Tamma wrote,

“..a better man never lived; he was kind, good-natured, free hearted and industrious. We won many friends and he was a genius at doing anything he saw someone else do…They (the children) thought their father was so perfect that he could not do anything wrong and that he knew everything…Albert’s folks had offered him everything if he would stay with them and not go with the Mormons, but the Gospel and the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Holy Priesthood was all that he wanted.

Tamma’s Story

Born March 6, 1813, in Lennox, Madison County, New York, Tamma Durfee Miner Curtis Curtis, was the daughter of Edmund Durfee and Magdalena (Lana) Pickle. At the age of nine, the family moved to Amboy, Oswego County, New York, where her father built a home on a small farm and worked at his trade  as a carpenter and millwright. Eventually the family moved to Ruggles, Huron County, Ohio, where the family heard Solomon Hancock preach about the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith in a vision.

Montrose, as mentioned above, is where the Saints camp was filled with innumerable flocks of Quail, sent as it were from heaven, and so tame that they were caught very easily and prepared for food and thus the feeling of hunger was relieved by this miraculous occurrence.  At this point in the life of this family. Sister Miner went through the  most heart-rending trial yet allotted to her, in the loss by death of her earthly protector, her husband. Brother Albert Miner died January 5, 1848,  leaving her with but little means, and a family of seven children,  the oldest of whom was fourteen years. Undaunted and full of faith  in the Gospel of Christ, Sister Miner continued on in the work of the Lord.

She paid off the $90.00 funeral expenses of her husband and in the month of May moved her family to Council Bluffs, Iowa. Many trying scenes did this family pass through, one after the other, as such was the case with the Saints in general. In the Spring of 1847 when the Saints began that wonderful pilgrimage to the valley of the fountains, under the Leadership of Brigham Young,  Sister Miner, having a firm testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel, and a great desire burning within her soul to go where the Saints were once again gathering. She began at once making preparations for that thousand mile journey.

LDS Exodus

After staying about two years, on June 10, 1850, they started with one hundred wagons  In William Snow’s company crossing the plains with ox-cart teams.  Sister Miner, having in readiness all her earthly possessions, which consisted of two yoke of oxen, and two yoke of cows, with one wagon, supplied with a limited amount of provisions, and the same of clothing, bid  goodbye to her brother Edmond, friends and all relatives, and with her family, started on this long journey.  Landing in October in Salt Lake City and without any home or anyone to even hunt them, they were indeed very lonesome.

Enos Curtis, whom she had known in Lima, married Tamma on October 20, 1850. Living on the Jordan River the first winter, the family moved to Springville, Utah the following spring. There they began to farm, raise wheat and stock and paid their tithing. On June 1, 1856 Enos passed away. In 1857, Tamma married Enos’s son, John White Curtis. She had five boys and four girls by Albert Miner, four girls, two of whom were twins, by Enos Curtis, and one girl by John White Curtis.

Springville was originally settled in 1850 by eight pioneer families who crossed the plains to Salt Lake Valley from the East and were subsequently directed by Brigham Young to settle 50 miles further south.  Incorporated in February 1853, the city was first called Hobble Creek by the early pioneers because their horses were often hobbled (by loosely tying their front feet together) and left along the stream to graze in the lush grass. If the horses wandered into the creek, the hobbles came off in the water. Thus, the settlement earned its original name. Later, as the town grew, the name was changed to Springville because of the many freshwater springs in the area. The original name was not completely lost, however, as the canyon stream and golf course have retained the name Hobble Creek. Springville is known today as “Art City” due to its strong development of the Arts.

January 30, 1885 Sister Tamma passed this life at the age of 71 years, 10 months, and 24 days, leaving nine children, 75  grandchildren and 17 great grandchildren. besides a vast circle of friends to mourn her loss. By a life of virtue and unflinching integrity, as well as by her many excellent traits of character, he had endeared herself to all. She died as she had lived, in full faith of a glorious resurrection. The funeral services were held
at the old meeting house in Springville, Monday Feb. 2nd, 1885.

At this writing November 19, 1913, Mormon and Moroni Miner are the only children living of Albert and Tamma Durfee Miner.  Their stories follow below.

Autobiography of Tamma Durfee Miner

Written by Tamma Miner March 15, 1880 in Springville, Utah. for the Relief Society and filed in the Jubilee Box in 1880, and opened in May 1950 by officers of Utah Stake Relief Society. It was handed to her granddaughter Frances Carter Knight, daughter of Polly Miner Carter, The history has Since been resealed in a box to be opened again in another fifty years. [Don't know whether this happened in 2000]

My father’s name was Edmond Durfee. He was born in Rhode Island Oct, 5, 1788. Father was of Irish descent I think. Mother was born June 6, 1788 of Dutch descent. Her name was Lanna Pickle, Her father and mother from Holland, I think High Dutch.

I was born in the State of New York, Madison County, Town of Lenox, June 6, 1815, and we lived there until I was about nine years old and then we moved to Oswego County, Town of Amboy, in a new County.  Father bought some land, built him a house, made a small farm, and  worked at his trade that was mostly carpenter and millwright. We lived  there till the first of June 1830 , and then bought more land. There were  lots of maple trees on it and we made lots of maple sugar. Then father  wanted to go west, so he sold his sugar bush and farm and everything and  started for the State of Ohio. We went through Camden Village to the Canal, went on the Canal to Buffalo, went across Lake Superior and landed at Portland, From there we went to Huron County, Township of Buggies. Father bought some land and went to work to make a home and the next winder, in 1831, we heard about the Mormons, and the gold Bible. The next spring, Solomon Hancock came along preaching about Joseph Smith, said that the Lord and the Angel Moroni had revealed them to him. Solomon Hancock came and joined in with us, the Methodists, and the Campbellites, and he would preach in our meeting house. We would go to hear him and were all astonished for it was so much different from what it had been reported. This was sometime in April 1831, and my father Edmond Durfee was baptized about the middle of May, and my mother and sister Martha and brother Edmond were baptized about the first of June by Solomon Hancock. I believed it the first time I heard him preach it and told us the Book of Mormon was true, I was a Mormon in belief but was not baptized till Dec. 1831 and will tell you the reason I was not baptized. I was keeping company with a good young man, as I thought, and I was told he said he would not have a Mormon wife, so I waited till after I Was married I went to the Mormon meetings and sometimes to the Methodist till the ninth of August 1831, when I was married to Albert Miner. Afterwards we got along first rate and we went to meetings sometimes to one place and sometimes to the Mormons till Dec, 1831 when my father was going on a Mission to the State of New York, and he baptized me before going on his mission.

Albert’s mother, brothers and sisters, had a great deal to say about the  Mormons as they did not believe In the Book of Mormon, but he told them that “The more they had to say, the sooner he would be baptized.” He waited till the first of February 1832 when they cut a hole in the ice and baptized him.

My oldest daughter Polly was born on May 1, 1832. My father gathered some of his Carpenter tools and see grain and farming tools and in company with others he started for Jackson County, Missouri. He left on the first of February 1832 to build a place for all his family to go to and he came back the 20th of May. Then he went back to The States on a short mission and came home in the fall of 1832. He sold his farm and all his possessions and started for Kirtland, Ohio on the first of May 1833. The Lord said he would keep a stronghold  for five years in Kirtland. We bought a farm, built us some houses and prepared to live.

I was here on the fourth of July when they wanted twenty-four Elders to lay the corner stone to the Kirtland Temple, and they ordained  George A. Smith and Don Smith to make the 24, six to each corner, and my husband Albert Miner helped to haul stone every Saturday for a long time to build the Temple. My oldest boy was born Oct. 22, 1835. We named him Orson. The next Spring the most of the Elders were called  to volunteer to go and redeem Jackson County, Albert told Mr. Dennis Lake he would draw cuts to see which would go or which would take care of the families. Dennis Lake went with the Company to redeem Jackson County and when he got back he apostatized and sued Joseph Smith for three month’s work, $60.00. Brigham and a man with him, came to our house and asked him for his license and he refused to give it to them. Brigham Young said: “It made no difference. They could publish him and he told Albert Miner that he would receive his blessing.” This was in the fall of 1834. On the 4th day of June 1835. I had a son born, called his name Moroni, and Joseph Smith blessed him and said: “he should be as great as Moroni of old and the people would flee unto him and call him blessed.” They were still building the Temple. There were some of the brethren who came from a distance and stayed until the next Spring. Some stayed with us and received their endowments and were there to the dedication of the Temple in March 1836. After that a good many began to apostatize and broke up the Kirtland Bank, I had a girl born June 18, 1836. We called her name Silva. A great many things transpired  that I haven’t time to write, and so long ago that I can’t place them,  Land came up and sold for a large sum of money and they had a great speculation and a great many left the Church of Latter-day Saints. I had a boy born Sept. 26, 1837, called him Mormon, In the Spring of 1837 my father sold his farm and all he possessed and started for Caldwell County, Iowa. and we stayed that summer and fall. Those that left the Mormons grew worse till Joseph and Sidney and Father Smith had to leave in January in the middle of the winter. That fall Albert had a very bad sick spell. The last of January he got some better so he could ride in a sleigh on a bed and I held the umbrella over him and with two children on my lap, we went 80 miles from Kirtland to New London, Huron Co, Ohio where Albert’s folks lived. The four days on the road had been pleasant and warm but it turned fearfully cold winter weather. Albert got better and we stayed there until May.

Albert went back to Kirtland and sold his farm, put some of his means in to help the Kirtland Camp, and with the balance, Albert Miner, wife and children, started for Missouri far west, about the middle of June 1838, bidding his mother, brothers and sisters, all farewell for the Gospel’s sake. His father died 1829. We traveled until we got short of means and then we stopped and worked till we got some more money and then went back to the camp to pay them a visit and then we went on to Missouri and got to Dewit the last of August, The children were all sick and I had been so sick that I could not walk, and Albert had been so sick that he could not harness his team nor take care of It, but he soon got better. We stayed one week In Dewit and then we started for Far west all alone. We got to my father’s about the first of September, The children were all sick but father said they would get better and they did so in a few days, all but Silva, who got worse and died about the first of October, 1838.

The mob gathered and killed a number at Hans Mill and gathered and drove ail the Mormons from Adam Diamon to Far west; then not being satisfied, the whole State, with the Governor at their head, gathered by the thousands to drive them from Far west. They wanted Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, our leaders, and the Twelve, and all they could get and put them in prison, and they got many. Some were bailed out, Others had to stay and take up with such fare as they could get. They were even given human flesh to eat, but Joseph told them “not to eat It, for the Spirit of the Lord told them, through him, that it was human flesh.” Thus we were plundered, smitten and driven and our lives threatened, and we were ill-treated on every side by our enemies. enemies to the truths of heaven. They would come one to five hundred, right to our houses, and nobody around but women and little children. They would take our men prisoners without any cause whatever, only because they were Mormons and believed in the truths of the Gospel. They wanted to know if we had any guns or pistols or ammunition or butcher knives and all such things. No one can describe the feelings of the Saints and what they passed through. No tongue can tell, only those that experienced it and was an eye witness, when they came to our homes in this kind of way.

Those men that were at liberty and had teams, had to help others to the Mississippi river and then go back after their own families.- Father’s folks had lived there one year. He left in 1837, and Albert Miner and wife and five children got to Missouri the first of Sept. 1838 and lived on what they called Log Creek, six miles from Far west. I was there when they killed David Patten, when they took lots of prisoners, and when the saints had to lay down their arms for their enemies.

Mr. Miner was one who had to take a load to the Mississippi River so we did not get away until the first of April 1839. We had witnessed a good many leaving in the cold and dreary winter. We crossed over to Quincy, went up the river to the place called Lima, prepared to live there a short time. But the devil wasn’t dead yet. In a short time there were some who would go to Lima and get drunk, and come back swearing and tearing enough to frighten men, let alone women and children. I told Mr. Miner that I did not like to live there. I did not like to see those drunkards and hear them swear.

While at Lima I had a girl born January 12, 1840 and we called her Matilda. We stayed there until one year from the next September. We got along the best we could, every fall and Spring go thirty miles to Conference and then on the Fourth of July to training. I had a boy born Sept. 7, 1841. We called him Alma L. The next Spring we sold out and my husband bought a place four miles east of the Temple in Nauvoo and we lived there where we could go to meeting and back at night. I had a boy born June 12, 1843 and we called him Don C. Miner. We were there in 1844 when Joseph and Hyrum were martyred. I went and saw them after their deaths and when they were brought back to their home. I had been acquainted with them for 12 years. I had heard them both preach In May. I had heard them talk to the Saints a great many times. I once heard the Prophet Joseph talk to a congregation for five hours and no one was tired. This was in Kirtland before they built the first Temple. A great many incidents I had passed through but have not time to name them all. we still lived in Nauvoo.

The Nauvoo Temple was completed, then the mobs became violent again. They threatened and told around how they would kill and drive the Mormons out. They did kill several and drove them from Lima. They shot my father Edmond Durfee and killed him Instantly on November 19,1845. He who had never done them any harm in his life, but on the contrary, had always taught them good principles of truth and uprightness and greatness and morality and industry, all the days of his life. But before this they drove them all out of Father Morley’s settlement, turned their sick ones out, drove them all out to live or die, rolled my brother Nephi up in a bed and threw it out doors when he was sick, went to the Oat stack, got two bundles of oats, put a brand of fire on them, and threw them on top of the house and said they would be back next morning. Father was trying to move some place and they came back and shot their guns and ran them all off. They plundered, made fires, burned houses, furniture and clothing, and looms, yarn, cloth and carpenter tools. The iron from the tools they picked up and filled barrels. Everything all burned to ashes, and the mob went from house to house driving them out, sick or well, it made no difference, until they burnt every house in town, that was owned by the Mormons.

The men from Nauvoo got their teams and started for Lima. They traveled all night and day to get the families that had been turned out doors. My husband was one that traveled all night and he got  sick, took a chill, and was very sick for a long time. The mob said they could come back and gather their crops, and when they were very near done, they decided to stay over Sunday. When it got dark Saturday  night, they built a fire close by the barn and stables. The Mormons thought  they meant to burn their horses, and the men ran out to stop the fire.  The mob stood back in the timber and our men got between them and the fire, and they shot off about a dozen guns but my father was the only one killed.

They built a fire in different places. One fire they built in a corn crib where the shucks were very dry. The fire burned a little and then went out, so you see they could not go any farther than the Lord would let them. This was in the fall of 1845 and they still kept gathering and threatening all the fall and winter. The Saints worked hard all winter. In the Temple they gave endowments and sealed others, They worked at repairing and building wagons, getting ready to leave Some of them left before the ice broke up in the river and the rest soon after.

A little over one year before, my husband had his farm bought from under him, by a man by the name of Ephraim S. Green, with all he had worked and done and paid on it and was turned out doors with a family of little children, so he rented one year and turned out one span of horses and bought piece of land in order to make another home.

On March 5, 1846, I had a girl born, called her Melissa. We remained there for a time. The mob gathered every little while and threatened all the time how they would drive out the Mormons. At last a great many left, not knowing where they were going, to hunt a place in the wilderness among the savages and wild beasts, over the desert beyond the Rocky Mountains, where white men had never lived,, In the Spring the mob began to get together once a week and threaten to drive what was left. The first of May we moved to town, sold our place for a yoke of cattle and wagon, thinking to start in two or three weeks, but the mob gathered every week, right on the public square close by the house. The Mormons told them they would go as fast as they could get ready and get teams to go with. It was mostly women and children that were there and they did not want any more of the men to leave for fear of what might happen, so we stayed, and my oldest brother was with us, and family.

At last the mob gathered in full and reports came that they were camped outside the town about a mile, about 2,000 of them. One  afternoon they started to come in to town, cross-lots. There were only fifty of our men to go out to meet them, but they drove them back that night . In the morning at 2 o’clock, it was moonlight, and the Mormons went and fired right in their camp. They fired guns and cannon on both sides until 2 o’clock in the afternoon. They killed three Mormon men. One was named Anderson, and he and his son were both killed by one cannon ball. One man was killed by a cannon ball while he was in the Blacksmith shop. Three men were slightly wounded, My brother was wounded between the cords of his heel, by a gun. There were only fifty of the Mormons against 2,000 of them. In the mob, ten of them had to be on guard, two on top of the Temple with spy glasses. They went into Law’s corn field and there they had their battle. They were seen to fill three wagons with the wounded and dead. And the next morning a woman stood in the second story of a house and saw the mob put seventy-six bodies in calico slips with a draw string around the neck and feet, before they left for home.

The Mormon women rolled the cannon balls up in their aprons, took them to our boys, and they would put them in the cannon and would shoot them back again when they were hot. It was a fearful time, I could have crossed the river but I would not leave my husband. In about two days they had to surrender, lay down their arms, I saw the mob, all dressed in black, ride two by two on horseback. It looked frightful. They said there was about 2,000 of them around the Temple in Nauvoo.

The men had to ferry the boat over five times for each family,, My husband had to ferry it over ten times, five for my brother that got wounded, and five for us. We got over and stayed there two weeks. We slept on the ground, waiting for help. There were fourteen of us to one wagon. My baby got sick, but we started and in three days my baby died on the first of October 1846. We traveled on one day and the next morning we burled her. She was seven months old. Her name was Melissa Miner. We went on three days and came to lowaville. We stayed there through the winder and there my husband worked at hauling and running a ferry boat.

When my baby died I took sick and never sat up only to have my bed made, for nine months. My husband thought of moving to the Bluffs but a good many came back to get work, so he cut and put up some hay for his stock and then said he would go back to Ohio to see all of his folks. He started afoot to the Mississippi River all alone, short of means. He went two or three miles when he looked down on the ground and right there before him was about $5.00 In silver. He went on and found his folks all well, but no one believed in the Gospel. All opposed him. He was gone ten weeks. He came home very unwell, and being gone so long, he was homesick and tired, and had walked in the rain all day.

Polly, my oldest girl, who was fourteen years old, took care of the family of nine and waited on me while I was sick and while her father was gone, Not feeling very well when he came home, he thought he would feel better after he got rested but he grew worse. He would try to work a half a day and go to bed the other half. He came home about May 17, 1847. He would be first better then worse till at last he dropped off very suddenly.

That was a hard blow for we thought that he was getting better. I and the children thought a better man never lived, a kind, good natured disposition, free-hearted, industrious. He won many friends and was a genius at doing anything he saw any one else do. Alma and the little boys said: “Which way shall we go. We will not know the way.” They thought their father was so perfect that he could not do anything wrong and that he knew everything.

Albert Miner was born in the State of New York, March thirty first, 1809, Jefferson County. His father’s name was Asel Miner, His mother’s name was Sylvia Monson.

Polly and Orson were the oldest, they bad to take the lead and go ahead and plan. His folks had offered him everything if he would stay with them and not go with the Mormons, but the Gospel and the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Holy Priesthood was all that he wanted, Polly was a true and faithful girl to her mother and all the children. Albert, my husband, died Jan, 3, 1848. He had been so very anxious to go to the Bluffs and keep up with the Church, so myself and children went to work and got things together and the next July 1846 came to Council Bluffs. We stayed there about two years. We worked and got things together to come to the valleys.

I and my five boys and two girls started, with one hundred wagons June 10, 1850, We traveled across the plains with ox teams. We had many a hard struggle although we got along much better than we had anticipated. The first of September we landed in Salt Lake without any home or any one to hunt us one. We ware very lonesome indeed. We stayed with father and mother Wilcox two weeks, when Enos Curtis came along and said he would furnish me and the children a home. That was what we needed for it was coming winter. We were married October 30, 1850. We lived on the Jordan the first winter and I and my children all had the irricipliss in the throat and my oldest boy died with it on March 5, 1851. He had driven the team across the plains for me and he was as kind and good natured a boy as ever lived. The next April we moved to Springville, got a farm and a place to build. We got along first rate. We had gone into the wilderness trying to build up the Kingdom. On October 18th. 1851. I had a girl born and called her Clarissa Curtis, We lived there and the boys grew up and Mr. Enos Curtis, my husband, his boy, and mine, all worked  together, raised wheat and grain and stock-paid their tithing. I had a girl born February 25, 1855. We called her Belinda Curtis. The next Spring Enos Curtis went to Iron County with Brigham Young and Company. When they got back they made a party for the company, June 12, 1854. One year from that day I had a pair of twin girls naming one Adelia and one Amelia Curtis.

The next Spring my husband was complaining of not being very well. But he kept on working for awhile till at last he gave up. After awhile  he began to take something and thought he was better, then he got worse, lived till the first day of June 1856, when he passed away, just like going to sleep without a struggle or a groan. His children were all with him but two, one of his boys was on a Mission in England, Myself and four boys were left to keep house, and three little girls. One boy was twenty years old, the other fourteen, and the other twelve,  One was seventeen. We still lived in Springville City, farmed and raised our wheat and stock and paid our tithing, I raised the little girls, all but one. She took sick and died before her father. She was Adelia, one of the twins.

In 1857 I married John Curtis at April Conference and I had a girl born Jan. 16, 1858, calling her Mariette Curtis. I had five boys and four girls by Albert Miner, and I had four girls by Enos Curtis, and I had one girl by John Curtis. I had fifty-eight grand children and 11 great-grand-children. I had fourteen children in all and they are all very good and kind to me. Albert Miner was Joseph Smith’s life-guard in Kirtland, My brother was also, but he left the Church. In those days there  was but a handful in comparison to what there is now.

I have passed through all the hardships and drivings and burnings a and mobbings and threatenings and have been with the Saints in all their persecutions from Huron Co., to Kirtland, and from Kirtland to Missouri and back to Illinois. For want of time I have passed over some things of importance. I hope my children will appreciate these few lines for I do feel highly honored to be numbered with the Latter day  Saints and I pray that our children will all prove faithful, that they may  receive a great reward.

Children

1. Polly Miner

Polly Miner Carter

Polly’s husband Dominicus Carter  was born 20 Jun 1806 in Newry, Oxford, Maine,  His parents were John Carter and Hannah Knight Libby.  Dominicus died 02 Feb 1884 in Provo, Utah. He married (1) Lydia Smith on 11 May 1828 in Scarborgh, Cumberland, Me, daughter of Jonathon Smith and Lydia Brown. He married (2) Sylvia Ameretta Meacham (Mecham) on 28 Mar 1839 in Adams County, Ill. He married (3) Mary Durfee on 02 Jan 1844 in Navoo, Hancock, ILL. He married (4) Polly Miner on 09 Oct 1851 in Provo, Utah,   He married (5) Elizabeth Brown on 20 Jun 1852 in Salt Lake City, Utah. He married (6) Fanny Nash on 06 Jan 1857 in Provo, Utah. He married (7) Caroline Elizabeth Hubbard on 02 Feb 1864 in Salt Lake City, Utah. He married (8) Sophronia Babcock.

Dominicus had 48 children with 8 wives,  Polly had 12 children, 6 who lived to adulthood.

Dominicus Carter 1806-1884

Born in humble circumstances in Scarborough, Cumberland county, Maine, Dominicus Carter was the son of John and Hannah Knight Libby Carter. His father was a farmer, and Dominicus along with the rest of the family worked the farm. He had no formal schooling, but he did learn the trade of blacksmithing.

He married Lydia Smith in 1828 and a few years later they joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Some records have 30 June 1832, others have 30 June 1834.) They moved to Kirtland (it appears they were in Kirtland by 1834) where he “had the privilege of hearing and listening to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

In 1838 Dominicus and Lydia Smith Carter were a part of Kirtland Camp, the large wagon train that made the exodus from Kirtland to Missouri. While traveling, they lost their two-year-old daughter Sarah Emily. Then, twenty days after arriving in Far West, Lydia died, leaving Dominicus with four children. The following month, November of 1838, he married Sophronia Babcock. Together they endured the trials of expulsion from Missouri.

In 1839 Dominicus took his first plural wife, Sylvia Ameret Meacham, and in 1844 he took another – Mary Durfee. He also was married to Sophronia Babcock’s younger sister Eliza Babcock. It appears that Dominicus and Eliza were married in 1846 during the Nauvoo period, but she was back with her mother soon after as evidenced by the Winter Quarters Wards Membership Lists. Eliza crossed the plains as Eliza Babcock, and in 1855 she married John Groves.

Dominicus was living near Nauvoo when the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were killed.

The trials of those days are well known and don’t need to be repeated. It is said that Dominicus intended to leave with the early emigrants for the West, but he was asked to stay in Nauvoo and build wagons. He also worked on the Nauvoo temple and was one of those who received the blessings of that temple in December of 1845. Eventually they joined the body of the saints in Winter Quarters, but Sophronia died in childbirth on the plains on 26 August 1847.

In 1851 Dominicus, his wives and his six living children finally arrived in Salt Lake City. They moved to Provo in October of that year. But Sylvia Meacham decided that she didn’t like the life of the polygamist wife and divorced him. It’s unclear exactly when she left, but they had to be together for the conception of their son Isaac Morley, who was born in June of 1851 and died while they were crossing the plains. They had no more children together  and Sylvia married her 2nd husband on 3 Nov 1855, so she was divorced from Dominicus by then.

Once Dominicus was settled in Provo, he took four more wives:

Polly Miner 1851

Elizabeth Brown 1852

Caroline Maria Hubbard 1854 (divorced in 1861)

Frances Nash 1857

Among his descendants, much is made of Dominicus Carter’s nine wives, but before he ever came west he had already lost two of those wives, and three others chose to leave. During most of the Provo years he lived with four wives: Mary Durfee, Polly Miner, Elizabeth Brown and Fannie Nash. At his death all four of those women were at his bedside. By the count of his grand daughter Hannah Clark Pike, he had “46 children, 17 of whom preceded him in death, 87 grandchildren and 41 great grandchildren.” (The book “Carter Pioneers of Provo Utah” says he had 52 children, but there are several known mistakes in that list.)

Dominicus Carter was described as a high-spirited man and a respected citizen of Provo:
He was First Counselor to President George A. Smith of the Utah Stake.
He served on the Provo City Council.
He was a Probate Judge for four years.
He was a good singer and in the early days led the singing in Provo.
He helped organize a band which furnished music for the early militia and was their leader for twenty years.

During the 1880s, when polygamists were hunted and tried, many men went into hiding – but Dominicus Carter stood his ground. As a result, he served time in the state penitentiary. He was in his seventies.

In the history that Hannah Clark Pike wrote about her grandfather, she said this: “For years he ran a blacksmith shop in Provo. I remember as a girl seeing him put the oxen in an old wood frame to shoe them. He and his older sons also ran a hostelry. I remember seeing the stages drive in, they would run out and change the horses. Sometimes the stage would hurry away and at other times they would remain and go to my father’s large home and eat. He always lived in Provo, owning a great deal of property. His homes, blacksmith shop and hostelry were between 1st and 2nd North, 5th West and from 4th West to 5th West and 1st North, Provo. He died as he always lived, a true Latter-day Saint. While on his death bed he called his family around him and gave them many sacred charges for their guidance through life. He bore a strong testimony to the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith and advised his posterity to abide in his faith.”.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Lydia Smith are:

  1. +Sidney Rigdon Carter, b. 30 Aug 1834, Newry, Oxford, Me, d. 10 Nov 1912, Joseph, Sevier, Utah.
  2. Arlytia Lydia Carter, b. 18 May 1829, Newry, Oxford, Me, d. 04 Jun 1854, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  3. Sarah Emily Carter, b. 11 May 1836, Kirtland, Guaga, Ohio, d. 11 Aug 1838.
  4. Lydia Ann Carter, b. 20 Feb 1838, Kirtland, Guaga, Ohio, d. 08 Dec 1854.
  5. Lucinda McKenney Carter, b. 14 Jan 1831, Newry, Oxford, Me, d. 26 Jan 1904, Aurora, Seiver, Utah.
  6. Barrett Carter, b. 10 Jan 1833, Newry, Oxford, Me, d. date unknown.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Sylvia Ameretta Meacham (Mecham) are:

  1. Erastus Francis Carter, b. 24 Jan 1843, Adams County, Ill, d. 26 Nov 1912, Park Valley, Box Elder, Utah.
  2. Nellie Ann Carter, b. 26 May 1865, Provo, Utah, d. 1865.
  3. Harriett Carter, b. 27 May 1855, Provo, Utah, d. 1855.
  4. Issac Morely Carter, b. 02 Jun 1851, Provo, Utah, d. 1851.
  5. Amelia Carter, b. 18 Dec 1866, Provo, Utah, d. 1866.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Mary Durfee are:

  1. Mary Ann Carter, b. 1872, Provo, Utah, d. 16 May 1879.
  2. Ezra Carter, b. 22 Jan 1859, Provo, Utah, d. 22 Jan 1859, Provo, Utah.
  3. Heber Kimball Carter, b. 22 Jan 1859, Provo, Utah, d. 14 Aug 1926, Provo, Utah.
  4. Marion Carter, b. 06 Feb 1870, Provo, Utah, d. Mar 1874.
  5. Marian Carter, b. 06 Feb 1870, Provo, Utah, d. date unknown.
  6. Charles Carter, b. 17 Feb 1867, Provo, Utah, d. 14 Feb 1928.
  7. Edmund Durfee Carter, b. 02 Mar 1854, Provo, Utah, d. 28 Mar 1915, Wells, Elko, Nevada.
  8. James Chauncy Carter, b. 27 Mar 1856, Provo, Utah, d. 15 Nov 1921, Provo, Utah.
  9. Violete “K” Carter, b. 31 Mar 1864, Provo, Utah, d. 20 May 1865.
  10. Warren Carter, b. 08 May 1860, Provo, Utah, d. 10 Jan 1922.
  11. Phoebe Carter, b. 26 May 1862, Provo, Utah, d. 01 Sep 1930, Provo, Utah.
  12. Mary Jane Carter, b. 04 Jun 1850, Provo, Utah, d. 07 Dec 1922, Glendale, Franklin, Idaho.
  13. George Dominicus Carter, b. 15 Jun 1852, Provo, Utah, d. 07 Dec 1922, Glendale, Franklin, Idaho.
  14. Willford Carter, b. 13 Nov 1848, Council Bluffs, Pottaw, IA, d. 23 Apr 1849.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Polly Miner are:

  1. Seth Carter, b. 10 Jan 1867, Provo, Utah, d. 04 Mar 1869, Provo, Utah.
  2. Albert Miner Carter, b. 10 Feb 1860, Provo, Utah, d. 28 Jan 1929, Provo, Utah.
  3. Frances Carter, b. 17 May 1853, Provo, Utah, d. 30 Dec 1935, Provo, Utah.
  4. Tamma Miner Carter, b. 25 May 1862, Provo, Utah, d. Dec 1862, Provo, Utah.
  5. Harriett Carter, b. 27 May 1855, Provo, Utah, d. 1855, Provo, Utah.
  6. Joseph William Carter, b. 06 Jul 1870, Provo, Utah, d. 16 Aug 1941, Provo, Utah.
  7. Tamma E Carter, b. 27 Sep 1861, Provo, Utah, d. Dec 1861, Provo, Utah.
  8. Fanny E Carter, b. 27 Sep 1861, Provo, Utah, d. Jan 1929.
  9. Marriet Carter, b. 27 Nov 1855, Provo, Utah, d. 27 Nov 1855, Provo, Utah.
  10. Harriet Carter, b. 27 Nov 1855, Provo, Utah, d. 1856, Provo, Utah.
  11. Alma Miner Carter, b. 20 Dec 1865, Provo, Utah, d. 17 Oct 1939, Raymond, Alberta, Canada.
  12. Polly Ann Carter, b. 29 Dec 1857, Provo, Utah, d. 24 Aug 1931, Clifton, Greenlee, Arizona.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Elizabeth Brown are:

  1. Illis Carter, b. 05 Jan 1871, Provo, Utah, d. 05 May 1881, Provo, Utah.
  2. Ezra Carter, b. 22 Jan 1859, Provo, Utah, d. 22 Jan 1859, Provo, Utah.
  3. Hannah Libby Carter, b. 29 Jan 1861, Provo, Utah, d. 09 Jan 1938, Lynwood, Los Angeles, CA.
  4. John F. Carter, b. 02 Oct 1863, Provo, Utah, d. 17 Mar 1953.
  5. Mariah Elizabeth Carter, b. 27 Feb 1856, Provo, Utah, d. 12 Sep 1907, Provo, Utah.
  6. Ann Carter, b. 28 Feb 1867, Provo, Utah, d. 16 May 1867, Provo, Utah.
  7. Enos Carter, b. 28 Mar 1854, Provo, Utah, d. 07 Feb 1938, Nampa, Canyon, Idaho.
  8. Ruth Carter, b. 10 May 1869, Provo, Utah, d. 05 May 1881.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Fanny Nash are:

  1. Franklin Richard Carter, b. 20 Sep 1859, Provo, Utah, d. 10 May 1932, Provo, Utah.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Caroline Elizabeth Hubbard are:

  1. Clara Melissa Carter, b. 23 Oct 1858, Provo, Utah, d. 13 Oct 1948, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  2. Willard Carter, b. 27 Mar 1856, Provo, Utah, d. 04 Dec 1941.

Children of Dominicus Carter and Sophronia Babcock are:

  1. Child Carter, b. 26 Aug 1847, Council Bluffs, Pottaw, IA, d. 26 Aug 1847, Council Bluffs, Pottaw, IA.

3. Moroni Miner

Moroni’s wife  Nancy Elizabeth Chase was born in 27 Nov 1845.  Nancy died  3 Jun 1928 in Springville, Utah, Utah.

Moroni Miner(1835 – 1935)

A Short History of Moroni Miner Who Lived to Celebrate his 100th Anniversary

Moroni Miner, oldest resident of Springville, Utah, celebrated his one-hundredth
birthday Tuesday June 4, 1935, with a family reunion. Invitations were Issued to 500 relatives and friends, including the Black Hawk Indian War veterans and committeemen, and a number of other citizens; also to Sons and Daughters of Utah Pioneers and the older citizens of Springville, and Church Officials.

The program began at 10 a.m. at Park Ro-Shee in Springville. It was carried on as follows:

Baseball and other sports, 10 a.m. to noon; 12 noon to 2 p.m. picnic, program and stunts; 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., swimming and other sports; 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., intermission and lunch. At 7:30 p.m. a pageant, portraying the life of Mr. Miner’s mother, Tamma Durfee Miner, written and directed by Mrs. Eva Maeser Crandall, was presented In the Second Ward Chapel. A dance followed,

Mr. Miner, whose formula for a long life includes much work, a cheerful attitude and a desire to be useful, was born June 4th, 1835, in Kirtland, Ohio, a son of Albert and Tamma Durfee Miner. His parents lived at Nauvoo at the time the Latter-day Saints were
driven from that country, and Mr. Miner recalls seeing the Prophet Joseph Smith many times.

After the family moved to a settlement on the Des Moines river, Mr. Miner’s father died and he was forced to make a living for himself at the age of 13 years. He started west with the Brigham Company, but due to his age and not having the consent of his mother, he was advised to return to his family.

In June 1850, with his widowed mother and all her possessions-two oxen, two cows and a wagon, scant provisions and seven children, Mr. Miner crossed the plains. He walked the entire distance of 1000 miles, driving cattle and sheep along the way. He states that during this memorable journey, great herds of buffalo blocked the road and had to be driven back to make passage.

Upon arriving in Utah, the family lived on a farm near the Jordan River until 1851, When they came to Springville, where Mr. Miner has since made his home.

Many are the Interesting stories of early Pioneer life and early Indian uprisings, related by Mr. Miner in a history written by himself. In 1854, with others, he went to Cedar Valley, to burn charcoal for use by the Salt Lake City blacksmiths. The  Industry progressed well until they were discovered by the Indians, who drove them away and burned their belongings. That same year Mr. Miner was called upon to act as guard in the Indian War, and he assisted in moving all the houses outside the eight central
blocks in Springville, into a fort. It was during this year, also, that he assisted in building a 12-foot wall around the original eight blocks of the City, the wall being constructed by
taxation and donations against Indian attacks.

He was called as a young man to assist in building a fence across the mouth of the canyons east of Springville, as a protection  against Indians. He tells of many anxious hours spent guarding  the canyons from which Indians would swoop down into the valleys  burning and plundering as they came.

When a young man he also was called to haul freight from the Missouri River to Utah enduring many hardships and dangers on the journeys. They also hauled the mail on these trips.

An interesting quotation from his life’s history states: “In June of 1859, the holidays coming on, I was short of ready means I therefore yoked up my oxen and took a scythe into the field and cut a load of hay. After curing it I loaded it onto my wagon and
hauled it to Camp Floyd, forty miles away, and sold it for $10.00 This money bridged me along during the holidays in a very  satisfactory, manner.”

In another portion of the sketch he states. “In the fall of 1863, word came that there was a scarcity of flour in Montana. I loaded up 4000 pounds and with Alex Robertson, Bringhurst and Houtz outfits, of four or five wagons, all loaded with flour, left for Montana. Arriving there we sold our loads for $25.00 per hundred Pounds. I took a four mule team and wagon and some gold dust as my share.” That fall Mr. Miner states wheat took a jump to $8.00 per bushel.

Moroni, with his brother Carlos Miner, took a contract with the Central Pacific Railway company, in 1869, to build the grade at Promontory Point where the golden spike was driven to mark the spot where the east and west railroads came together.

Mr. Miner also assisted in the construction of the first irrigation  canals in this vicinity and helped to build the first meeting house.  He was instrumental in bringing educational advantages to pioneer family children in this community.

During his middle and later life, Mr. Miner engages in the grocery business and also has been a successful farmer and stockman.

He married Nancy Elisabeth Chase in February 1861. She died in 1928, at the age of 83 years. They were the parents of twelve sons and three daughters. One child died in infancy, three boys died young, and the rest grew to maturity. Eight sons and two daughters have been married in the Salt Lake Temple.

Aside from the work in Civic affairs, Mr. Miner has always taken an active part in Church affairs, serving in numerous capacities  in the auxiliary organizations. He filled a mission to the Southern States in 1893, leaving at the age of 58 years to begin his mission. Because of his advance age, he resigned from the Stake High Priests in 1914.

Despite his 100 years of life, many of which have been filled with hardships and disappointments, Mr. Miner is still young for his years. He gets about his home, attends Church and sometimes entertainments, converses on topics of the day, and enjoys tales
of pioneer life. He looked forward with a child’s enthusiasm to his 100th birthday celebration and said he hoped to have many more. (However, he passed away during the following year.)

He lived to see five generations of his family and was privileged  to attend the Golden Wedding celebration in 1933 of his eldest son Bert and wife in Springville. Other living children at the 100th anniversary of Moroni, were: Mrs. Elizabeth Miner Whitmore,
Gloyd, M.F, and Paul Miner from Springville, Utah; George Miner, San Francisco, California; Thorn Miner, Philadelphia, Pa., mAustin Miner, Provo, Utah; Mrs. Ruth Miner Bennion, Vernal, Utah, together with their families. He had 49 grandchildren; 69 great-grandchildren and one great-great grandchild when he was 100 years of age.

Elder George Albert Smith of the Council of Twelve, and President Samuel 0. Bennion, of the First Presidents of Seventy, represented the General Authorities, and spoke in the afternoon meeting.

Mr. Moroni Miner received hundreds of telegrams and letters of congratulation during the day, among them a personal letter from President Heber J. Grant, congratulating him on having lived a full century.

Moroni immediately began his plans to go to the encampment of the Black Hawk Indian War Veterans to be held at Nephi Aug. 13, 14, 15, 16 and expressed a desire to camp out all of those days and nights.

5. Mormon Miner

Mormon’s wife Phoebe Emeline Curtis was born 6 Dec 1844.  Phoebe died 8 Feb 1905 in Fairview, Sanpete, Utah .

16 Oct 1914 – Autobiographical Sketch

I, Mormon Miner, the third son of Albert and Tamma Durfee Miner was born Sept. 26th 1837 at Kirtland, Lake Co. Ohio. Baptized at Council Bluffs June 1848 by David Garner, and Confirmed a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by James C. Snow.

My father having died when I was about ten year old, It was necessary that I should assist my mother’s and older brothers, all I possibly could in battling with the trials of life, to make ends meet, during those trying scenes the Saints were called to pass
through in the early history of the Church In Missouri, Ohio and Illinois.

My recollection of how difficult it was to keep body and soul together is impressed most vividly on my mind to this day.  I cannot enter into any discussion or even narrate for this sketch without feelings of sadness swelling up in my breast towards my parents and others who endured so much. My mother, a woman blessed  of God, with the endowments which go to make up character, with a divine nature of her soul most prominent, was not to be defeated in, her religious convictions; though her husband was taken, by death, she pressed on, holding her children together, trusting in the Lord to assist and make her equal to what may come, She, with her family left those scenes of persecution in June of 1850 for Salt Lake City. Arriving there the following October, I was then a boy of twelve years, and not having much responsibility resting upon me while  crossing the plains, it was more of a pleasure trip to me. I was greatly impressed with the vast herds of buffalo that then roamed over the prairies. So numerous were they that often times they had to be driven away from the road to keep from interfering with the wagon train, Needless to say we had plenty of buffalo meat. Cholera broke out In our camp while on the plains, and I drove one man’s team for two weeks, as he was sick and could not drive it. I walked the greater part of that long journey, barefoot, and drove loose stock most of the way, and slept on the ground.

Not long after reaching Salt Lake mother met and married Enos Curtis. My oldest brother, Orson, who bad taken the lead in all our doings, died the following March, 1851. It was in this month and shortly after Orson’s death, that we moved to Springville and located on Block 6 Plat A. We at once began plowing and planting grain and our crop was the first to mature in Springville. I helped In making the first water ditch to bring water on to our land and others and think it was the first irrigation done in Springville. We were compelled to live in our wagons until we built a house which was the first house built outside the fort. We built it from logs brought from the canyon, and covered it. with cut poles, straw and dirt. Springville built up rapidly the next few years and I aided in it’s
Advancement.

In the Spring of 1854, I along with other young men, went on to the mountains east of Mapleton and cut logs and slid them down the mountain sides, which were covered with snow, for the erection of a meeting house. It was hard work, yet for young men we enjoyed it, for  it afforded much excitement in seeing the logs go with great speed down
the mountain.

I was not enlisted in the Walker Indian War, but did service and stood guard many times during the year 1853. I assisted in building  the Fort walls. In 1855 mother lost her second husband, and the responsibility of caring for the family fell on me. I was ordained
a teacher this year. It was either this year or 1856 that the drought came and we did not have enough water to irrigate our lands, so the people were called upon to help in making a ditch from Spring Creek running southwest to Dry Creek, about three miles, I assisted In this work, A log 55 feet long, was needed in making a dam across Hobble
Creek. I volunteered to get it and did so. Going to the canyon alone with my oxen. I delivered the log at the desired place before sundown. My land was the first to be watered under the ditch. With the assistance of my two brothers, we watered 18 acres the first day. Our crops were saved, and a good harvest was the result of unity, hard work and perseverance.

Much has been written and said about the year 1854 when the grasshoppers came and took most of the crop of that year. I remember very distinctly that myself and brothers harvested about 75 bushels ofwheat, As our family was large and we had relatives who partly depended upon us, mother took it upon herself to deal out the wheat in small quantities. Before our crop the following year was harvested we were without flour and had to subsist on bran bread, and barley flour cakes. The manner in which the grasshoppers left was marvelous, for about the time the wheat was in the dough, from some unseen cause they took to the wing, and flew, some to the east and others to
the north, many were drowned in the lake and were washed upon the shore in great heaps.

In 1857 I was ordained a Seventy by Noah T. Guymond, I took part in the Echo Canyon, expedition at the time Johnson’s army was coming to Utah to wipe out the Mormons I was called in the early fall and camped in Echo Canyon where breast works were cast up ready to meet the army if It should attempt to come through. When the army went to camp at Fort Bridger for the winter, I was released to return home.

Echo Canyon formed the most direct route into the Salt Lake Valley. The Nauvoo Legion fortified the narrowest sections of the canyon in case the army attempted to break through. There is disagreement as to how effective their preparations would have been had an actual battle occurred.

In 1858 I assisted two families in the general move Southward, and my mother cared for them at our house. When peace was declared I moved one of the families back to their home while the other remained in Springville. After Johnston’s Army was permitted to enter the Valley they were located at Fairfield, Utah County, and made camp Floyd. The army brought many things the Saints were in need of. They furnished labor that brought good wages to the young men of the Church. I spent some time there making adobes, and hauling supplies to them. I also assisted the blacksmith in making nails, etc, out of old iron. During this year I assisted in making the first wagon road up Provo Canyon, and received pay in paper money from the Church,, or scripts as was used in those days.

In March of 1860 I moved to Fairview, Sanpete County, My brother Moroni accompanying me. We were among the number who took part In guarding the north end of the valley against the Indians and renegades following .Johnson’s Army. We spent about three months guarding this Valley and during that time we assisted in making a ditch across the Valley from which the people watered their land.  Prior to this, it was
more or less barren, but after being watered it became a beautiful meadow and is to this day. (It is now known as Indianola.) While on this trip I assisted in moving an Indian to Fairview. He had been attacked, by a, bear in the head while up Salt Creek Canyon, The Indians were hostile toward us, but this act of kindness did much toward making them think we were their friends, I was one to pilot Orson Hyde through Spanish Fork Canyon, before there was a road through it. Beginning with the year 1861 I furnished a yoke of Oxen for four years in succession to assist the Saints from Missouri River to Salt
Lake City, Utah.

On the 24th of February 1861 I married Emeline Phoebe Curtis of Springville who bore unto me thirteen (13) children. We began our home in Springville, residing there for over a year. during which time I was overseer of Bringhurst and Houst freighting outfits hauling supplies to Nevada to support the overland mail route. July 4th, 1862 our first child, Martin Mormon Miner was born. The fall of this year we moved to Salem and I worked in the mountains, getting out timber for the old Springville Cotton Factory, then owned by Bringhurst and Houst.  [Known as "Summer Spring" by the Indians, and "Pond Town" by early settlers, Salem was finally named after the birthplace of Lyman Curtis to honor his contributions to the community.]

During the spring and summer of 1865 I also worked In the timber. The fall of 1863 I moved with my family back to Fairview. I here bought a saw mill and then entered into partnership  with Brother Terry who had a mill site, and we moved the mills to his place below town. Licorgus Wilson was taken in as an equal partner in the business, through being an experienced millwright After the mill was in readiness, the people furnished logs and we made lumber from which the meeting; house and many homes were built I also bought land and opened a farm of 150 acres and went into farming and stock raising.

I served through the Black Hawk Indian war as a Lieutenant under Captain John Saunders, During the months of May and June 1866 the Indians in and about Fairview, were very hostile. They seemed to have in mind that all whites should be killed off.

[The causes of the Black Hawk War in Utah from the Ute perspective fall into several broad categories: general frustration for the loss of hunting, fishing, and camping areas and access to resources; retaliation for personal insults and mistreatment by individual Mormon settlers; the belief that going to war could discourage Mormon settlement, and the lack of promised supplies from the Indian agents at the Uintah Reservation in the winter of 1864-1865.]

One Christian Larson was killed while herding sheep. James Ivie and Henry Wright lost their lives, and many cattle and horses were stolen, and driven into the mountains. The people raised in arms and pursued the Indians, but they, being so well fortified in their mountain retreats, the whites had to fall back, with but few of their animals secured. During  these troublesome times President Young, dispatched General David H. Wells with his militia to assist the settlers in protecting their lives and property. This incident took place, June 30, 1866.

Many skirmishes followed and I took part in them. I was who assisted in preparing the bodies of John Owen and family (“six in number”) for burial. They were massacred by the Indiana in Thistle Valley. I was one of the posse who gave chase for the Indians who killed Thomas Jones and wounded William Avery, while Hyrum Wilson escaped unhurt. They were on picket duty outside of Fairview. The Indians made their escape to the mountains and it was thought not safe to follow.

In 1868-9 I worked on the Union Pacific Railroad, also on the Utah Central from Ogden to Salt Lake City, receiving for my labor for on the later, credit on tithing. In 1872 I was called to act as a Sunday School teacher at Fairview and continued In that capacity until 1902. I also served as a Trustee from 1875 to 1877 in the  Public Schools. The positions of trust I have filled are numerous. During the seventies I was superintendent of the United Order Stock Farm in Fairview. Was City councilman for ten years and assisted
in all the important enterprises, such as aiding the Arizona Mission in 1876, building meeting houses sawmills,, Roller Mills, etc. Through an order from President Young to Pres. Peterson I was one to go and assist in locating the Indians in what is now known as
Indianola. After Bro. Peterson and others had bought the land from the White settlers. I stayed with the Indians, assisting them In plowing and planting their crops. (This was in 1875.)

From 1883 to 1885 I served as a missionary in the Northern States. Have also sent four of my sons on missions; three in the United States and one to the Sandwich Islands, who is still there, Their expenses were borne principally by myself. In 1886 I was ordained a President of the 26th Quorum of Seventy, and acted in that calling until 1902, when because of old age I was honorably released, and ordained a High Priest by John R. Baxter Jan.14,1905.

In 1905 I was called to act as one of the workers in the Manti Temple and was there for six months. In February of 1905 I was called  upon to part this life with my wife, I afterward sold my home in Fairview and moved to Provo the same year. October 1906 I married  Elvira Euphrasia Cox in the Salt Lake Temple. The following year I bought a small home and a small farm on Provo Bench and am  at present [1914] still living there.

My entire life and energies have been direct toward the salvation  of souls, and the up-building of Gods work on earth. All the Temples which have been built in our State, I have assisted in their erections and have spent considerable time in them working for the dead. I take great pride in serving the Lord and living my religion, to the best of my ability. I have received many testimonies through the Inspiration of the Holy Spirits and will endeavor to give some of the impressions.

At the time of the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith When the news was brought to Nauvoo, the Spirit of the Lord came upon me in great power. It first gave the feeling of deep indignation at the thought of such a wicked crime, then the feeling of mourning
and later a consoling prompting that all would be well. At the time I was too young to understand fully the meaning of it all [he was seven years old in 1844], but reflecting upon it later in life and seeing the results, I have been able to explain these powerful manifestations.

During the time that is spoken of as the Reformation. I was exercised to know my condition before the Lord and made it a matter of prayer and supplication. In May 1856 the Lord gave me a testimony that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of the Lord, and later
that my sins were forgiven. This came to me the same as if a person had spoken, driving It in with great force Into my very being.

At one time my wife was in a very delicate condition and looking  to be confined. We kneeled down in prayer to the Lord and as we raised to our feet, the whispering of the still small voice said to me: “If you will attend to your prayers in the season thereof,
she will get along, all right.” When my wife came to be confined, she went through her labor without being sick, and could have gotten up as soon as her baby was delivered, and felt no further feelings of sickness.

Just before 1895 I had placed a mortgage on my farm for $1000.00 to start a Roller mill and turned the money over to the Mill Co. Hard times come in and it looked as though I would not be able to lift the mortgage. I applied to the Mill Co. for help, but they said my Capital stock was good for it and would take the $1200.00 I owed by process of law. I told them to take it before the Courts, but as I was walking home the whisperings of the Spirit said; “I would be given power to meet my obligations.” I then placed a heavier  mortgage on my farm and made settlement with my creditors. A few years later I sold stock and grain and cleared the indebtedness on my farm and at present am a free man.

On the 7th of December 1894 I was thrown from my wagon and my team ran away. I lit upon my shoulder and was badly hurt, so much so that I could not turn myself in bed. The Sisters administered to me, but no help or relief came. The second day the Spirit came to me and whispered the names of three Elders, Otto L. Terry Sr., Andrew Rasmussen and Neils Larson to come and administer to me. They came and during the administration an unseen power seemed to pull my arm and shoulder three times, causing me so much pain that I thought I would have to cry out, but when the Elders said Amen the pain all left me and the next morning I got up and ate my breakfast with the family. Since that time my shoulder has been just like the other one, except that it is a little weaker. After the completion of the Manti Temple, I was chosen a director from
Fairview to aid in setting up the business of the Temple and the arrange for the beginning of Temple work.

I have spent about seven years on the Miner family record, placing in it over one thousand names, and doing much of the work for them in the Temples of the Lord. I have been to considerable expense in gathering genealogies and the hunting up of histories that will give some idea of our ancestors.

7. Alma Lindsay Miner

Alma’s first wife Mary Housekeeper,

Alma’s second wife Caroline Jane Neilson was born 27 Jan 1852 in Aarhus, Denmark.  Caroline died 16 Sep 1927 in Fairview, Utah.

Caroline J. N. Miner (1852 – 1927)

Alma’s third wife Christina Ida Stephensen  was born 10 Jun 1885.  Christina died 29 Jan 1964  .

Alma Lindsey Miner (1841 – 1912)

DEATH NOTICE: The Manti Messenger, Friday 23 February 1912:
Funeral services over the remains of Alma Miner, who died Monday the 12th from heart failure, were held in the meeting house Friday, which was crowded with relatives and friends. The bishopric presided, the speakers were Jordan Brady, Samuel Bills, William Mower and Bishop Peterson. His daughter Sadie was here from Canada, his sons and daughters Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Barns, Mr. and Mrs. Willis Howell and Gilbert, from different parts in Utah; also a number of relatives from Springville including a brother and some relatives from Castle Valley and Mapleton.

Sources:

“A Short Biographical Sketch of the Lives of Albert Miner and his Wife Tamma
Durfee Miner” by _____________, written 19 Nov. 1913.

“Autobiography of Tamma Durfee Miner, written for the Relief Society and filed
in the Jubilee Box in 1880.

http://tmsociety.org/wp-content/miner_albert.pdf

http://www.familylinks.us/TD-f.html

http://www.farwesthistory.com/durfeed.asp

Posted in Dissenter, Line - Miner | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Thomas Hammond

Thomas HAMMOND (1545 – 1589) was  Alex’s 12th Great Grandfather; one of  8,192 in this generation in the Shaw line.

William Hammond – Coat of Arms

Thomas Hammond was born in 1545 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. His parents were John HAMMOND and Agnes GARROLD He married Rose TRIPPE 14 May 1573 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. Thomas died 24 Nov 1589 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England.

Rose Trippe was born in 1549 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. Rose died 23 May 1605 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England..

Children of Thomas and Rose:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Elizabeth Hammond 1 Apr 1574
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
George Kelsey
1599
Chelmsford, Essex, England
25 Nov 1631
Wethersfield, Essex, England
2. William HAMMOND 30 Oct 1575 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England Elizabeth PAINE (PENN)
9 Jun 1605 Lavenham
8 Oct 1662  London England.
3. Rose Hammond 22 Apr 1578 Lavenham, Suffolk, England 23 Mar 1605
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
4. Martha Hammond 6 Nov 1579 Lavenham, Suffolk, England Timothy Smart
14 Jun 1615 Lavenham, Suffolk, England
14 Jun 1615
England
5. Susan Hammond 15 Mar 1581
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
2 Oct 1589
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
6. Marie Hammond 7 Jul 1583
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
16 Jan 1585
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
7. Thomas Hammond 9 Jan 1587
Melford, Suffolk, England
Elizabeth Cason
12 Nov 1623
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
30 Sep 1675
Cambridge, Middlesex, Mass

Thomas was a , a supervisor of the Manor of Melford

Will; Oct 1589; Lavenham, Co. Suffolk, England.

WILL OF THOMAS HAMMOND, OF LAVENHAM, COUNTY SUFFOLK, ENGLAND. IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN.

The seconde daye of October 1589, I, Thomas Hamonde, of Lavenham in the Countie of Suff. Shereman, whole of mynde and of good and p’fecte rememberance make and ordayne this to be my last Will and Testamente in mann. followeinge:

Firste. I bequeathe my soule unto Almightie God, my maker & Redem., my bodie to the earthe &c.

Item, I give to Rose my wief my house wherein Thomas Westlie nowe dwelleth wth all and singular th appetenncs during the term of her naturall lief. And after the deceese of my said wife I will the said house wth th appetennces to remayne unto Willm Hamond my sone his heires and assignes forever.

Item, I give unto Rose my saide wief, my fielde called Great Lyverdowne wth a convenient waie to the same thurrowe my lane that lieth betwene the land of John Woode the elder and Robt Daniell and throughe my fielde called Little Liverdon for her drifte and carriage duringe the terme of her natural lief. And after the decease of my saide wief I will the said fielde and the said waye for dryvinge and carryinge to remaine unto Willm Hamonde my sonne his heires and assignes forever.

Item, I give unto Rose my wief, my fielde called Little Lyverdon wth the lane thereunto now leaddinge wth all and singular the appetnncs duringe the terme of her naturall lief, and after her decease I will that the saide field called Litle Liverdon and the said lane shall remayne unto Elizabeth Hamond my daughter, and to the heires of her bodye lawfully begotten, and if the saide Elizabeth shall dep’te owte of this lief before Rose my wief wth out yssue of her bodie lawfully begotten, that then I will the said lane to remayne unto Willm, my sonne, his heires and assignes forever. But if it fortune the saide Elizabeth my daughter to overlive Rose my said wief, that then I will the said feyld called Litle Liverdon and the said lane wth there appetnnce shall remayne unto the saide Elizabeth her heires and assignes forever.

Item, I give unto Rose my daughter, fortie shillings of lawfull monie of Englande, to be paide unto her at her age of xxjti years.

Item, I give unto Martha Hamonde, my daughter, fortie shillings of lawfull monie of Englande to be paide unto her at her age of xxjti yeares.

Item, I give unto Marie Hamonde my daughter, fortie shillings o?? lawfull monie of Englande to be paide unto her at her age of xxjti yeares.

Item, I give unto Susann Hamonde my daughter, fortie shillings o?? lawfull monie of Englande to paide unto her at her age of xxjti yeres.

Item, I give unto Margarett Jollye, my sister, a fether bedd and a?? Shippe Cheste.

The residue of all my goods, corne, cattells, monie, moveables, plate, household stuff and whatsoever my debts beinge payde and this my laste Will and testamente p’formed and fullfilled, I give unto Rose my wief, whom I make and ordayne to be sole Executrix of this my last Will and Testamente.

In witness I have hereunto sett my hand and Seale the day and yere afore written.

[Signed]

[Seal] Witnesses hereunto Robt. Lynch, Willm Trippe by me John Rynge, by me
Henrye Parker. Proved December 11, 1589.

Children

1. Elizabeth Hammond

Elizabeth’s husband George Kelsey was born in 1572 in Thorpe, Essex, England. His parents were George Kelsey and Johane [__?__]. George died in 1604 in Thorpe, Essex, England.

2. William HAMMOND (See his page)

4. Martha Hammond

Martha’s husband Timothy Smart was born 1579 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. Timothy died Lavenham, Suffolk, England.

7. Thomas Hammond

Thomas’ wife Elizabeth Cason was born 1603 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. Her parents were Robert Cason and Prudence Hammond. Elizabeth died 30 Sep 1675 in Newton, Middlesex, Mass.

This story is told of Elizabeth: When young, she took a walk with other youths to the Bank of England Mint to see how money was made. The Master of the Mint was pleased with her appearance and chat, and gave her an invitation to try her hand in money making. She had made some impression upon him, and he was desirous of knowing if she could make an impression on the coin. He placed a piece of silver upon the die, about the size of a half crown. She came forward and grasped the lever, and stamped a fair impression on the coin. He presented her with the piece. It is now possessed by Stephen Hammond, of Roxbury, whose son William, of the eighth generation from her, is expected to inherit the treasure.

In the early 1630s, Thomas and Elizabeth followed a first cousin of his, William Hammond, to the New Land. He became one of the first settlers in Hingham, Mass., where land was granted to him in 1636. He took the Freeman’s oath, March 9th, 1637. In Hingham, they had four children:

Children of Thomas and Elizabeth

i. Thomas Hammond b. 1630 in England; d. 20 Oct 1678 Newton, Middlesex, Mass; m. 17 Dec 1662 in Cambridge, Suffolk, Mass to Elizabeth Stedman

ii. Elizabeth Hammond b. 1633 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England’ d. 24 Aug 1700, Watertown, Middlesex, Mass; m. 17 Aug 1659, Watertown. as his second wife to our ancestor George WOODWARD

iii. Sarah Hammond b. 13 Sep 1640 in Hingham, Plymouth, Mass.; d. 1675 Newton, Middlesex, Mass.; m. 1656 in Hingham, Plymouth, Mass to Nathaniel Stedman

iv. Nathaniel Hammond b. 12 Mar 1643 in Hingham, Plymouth, Mass.;d. 29 May 1691 Newton, Middlesex, Mass; m. 1670 in Cambridge, Middlesex, Mass to Mary Griffin

Sources:

http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=15301649&st=1

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bdoyle795/1851.htm

Posted in 14th Generation, Line - Shaw | 2 Comments