| 8. | James** Rogers, (immigrant) was born in 1614 in England; died in Feb 1688 in New London, New London Co, Connecticut. Other Events and Attributes:
- Immigration: 1635, "Increase" England
- Will: 1688, New London, New London Co, Connecticut
Notes:
1. James Rogers1, 3184. Born ca 1615 in England.1,2,3 1613 per HCG chart. James died in New London, CT, in Feb 1688; he was 73.1,2 1688-7; 1687 per Judd, citing James Swift Rogers, ?James Rogers of New London, Ct and His Descendants,? (Boston, by the author, 1902), 27-30, and Frances Manwaring Caulkins, ?History of New London, Connecticut: from the first survey of the coast in 1612 to 1852? (New London Conn.: by the author, 1852), 200-201, accessed HeritageQuest 10 Dec 2003.
According to the Great Migration, he arrived in 1635 on the Increase and first lived in Saybrook, then to Stratford by about 1640, Milford by 1645, and New London by 1657. He was a biscuit baker in Milford when he was brought to court for producing biscuits of poor quality. When he moved to New London he leased John Winthrop, Jr.?s mill, which resulted in much litigation. He also was a merchant.
His wife, Elizabeth, was admitted to the Milford church in 1645, and he was admitted in 1653. In the 1670s they became Seventh-Day Baptists of Rhode Island, and then Rogerene Quakers.
He served as Deputy for New London to the Connecticut General Court many times from 1661 through 1662.
He served in the Pequot War in Connecticut in 1637.
The article describes James?s land transactions in some depth.
His inventory, taken 15 Feb 1687/8, included £208 of real estate, an Indian servant and ?his wife a Negro woman,? a mulatto servant named Adam, and a deaf and dumb ?Negro woman.?3
?James1 Rogers is one of the super-energetic and able men who emigrated to New England in the middle 1630s. He is said to be one of those from Saybrook who joined the Connecticut forces to fight the Pequots in 1637, shortly after his arrival. He is next found in Stratford, also on the Connecticut coast?suggesting that he traversed the route by ship. He married in Milford, also on the coast. It was in New London that his super-abundant energy and mercantile skills showed themselves. He was allied with William Pynchon of Springfield to buy up land from the allotments given the early settlers in New London, and there he amassed a fortune in trade. So much would be expected [in?] entrepreneurial activites for an ambitious man at the time. What was unique in James1 Rogers?s career was his embrace of a religion promoted, indeed founded, by his son, John, and given the family name, Rogerene. It was a sect which challenged the ecclesiastical authority of the day and encouraged the persecution of its devotees. The Rogerene religion followed his sons to the third generation and gave to the family line in New London a longstanding notoriety.
?James2 married a woman said to be from Ireland; William3 married into the Harris family, also from New London; Peter4 married the daughter of John Tinker, a trusted aide of John Winthrop, Jr. in New London. The daughter of Peter4 married Simon6 Wolcott, from the family whose origins were in Windsor.?4
?He was poss. the James Rogers, 20, who was given ?licens to go beyond the seas? on the Increase as recorded in London 15 April 1635. (Another James Rogers of Newport R. I. has also been offered that designation, a 20-year old immigrant on the Increase.)
?In 1637 James Rogers, later of New London, was one of six men from Saybrook under Capt. John Underhill who took part in the Pequot War.... He removed to Stratford where he married; later he removed to Milford where he joined Peter Prudden?s Church in 1652; his wife joined in 1645 and several of the children were bp. there. In 1646 James Rogers was listed as having a home lot of three acres in Milford; in 1655 there was a complaint to the General Court concerning the inferior quality of the biscuit James Rogers was supplying Virginia and Barbados; however, on 17 November 1656 the Court ordered that James Rogers ?hath grant? of his warehouse.
?He removed to New London as early as 1656, and became a freeman there 21 March 1660/1; he was active in church and town affairs and was seven times a representative to the General Court 1662-1673. Up to 1660 James Rogers had the most extensive foreign and domestic trade of any man in New London and had substantial real estate holdings.
?Miss Caulkins in her History describes his commercial eminence in New London with vivacity?and, indeed, his and his family?s careers in New London were colorful, controversial, individually enriching, sincere in religious belief, and the cause of extreme public annoyance and persecutions.
? ?Mr. Rogers had dealings in New London in 1656, and between that time and 1660, fixed himself permanently in the plantation. Here he soon acquired property and influence, and was much employed both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. He was six times representative to the General Court. Mr. Winthrop had encouraged his settlement in the place, and had accommodated him with a portion of his own house lot, next to the mill, on which Rogers built a dwelling-house of stone. He was a baker on a large scale, often furnishing biscuit for seamen, and for colonial troops, and between 1660 and 1671 had a greater interest in the trade of the port than any other person in the place. His landed possessions were very extensive, consisting of several hundred acres on the Great Neck, the fine tract of land at Mohegan called the Pamechaug farm, several house lots in town, and twenty-four hundred acres east of the river, which he held in partnership with Col. [William] Pyncheon, of Springfield [Caulkins, New London, 202].?
?That last reference is to James Rogers?s partnership with William Pynchon of Springfield, who evidently perceived bargains remote from his own bailiwick in Massachusetts. It seems likely that Rogers served as his man on the spot. Between them they bought up about 2,000 acres of the original small allotments made when New London was first settled [ibid., 96].
?Governor John Winthrop, Jr., on his removal to Hartford, leased James his warehouse, later a subject of litigation between Rogers and the Winthrop sons. This was used as a mill by Rogers; this contention between him and the most prominent family in the colony must have focused the attention of the small population at that time.
? ?The mill, being a monopoly, could not fail to become a source of grievance. One mill was manifestly insufficient for a growing community, and the lessee could not satisfy the inhabitants. Governor Winthrop subsequently had a long suit with Mr. Rogers for breach of contract in regard to the mill, but recovered no damages. The town likewise uttered their complaints to the General Court, that they were not ?duely served in the grinding of their corn,? and were thereby ?much damnified;? upon which the Court ordered, that Mr. Rogers, to prevent ?disturbance of the peace,? should give ?a daily attendance at the mill.? After 1662, the sons of the governor, Fitz John and Wait Still Winthrop, returned to the plantation and became regular inhabitants. Between the latter and Mr. Rogers a long and troublesome litigation was maintained in regard to bounds and trespasses, notices of which are scattered over the records of the County Court for several years. In 1669, Capt. Wait Winthrop set up a bolting mill on land claimed by Mr. Rogers, who, as an offset, immediately began to erect a building, on his own land, but in such a position as wholly to obstruct the only convenient passage to the said bolting mill. This brought matters to a crisis. RICHARD LORD [caps added], of Hartford, and Amos Richardson, of Stonington, were chosen umpires, and the parties interchangeably signed an agreement as a final issue to all disputes, suits at law and controversies, from the beginning of the world to the date thereof. Winthrop paid for the land on which the mill stood; Rogers took down his building frame, and threw the land into the highway, and all other differences were arranged in the like amicable manner.?
?It was in religion that James Rogers and his children became even more notorious; James established the Rogerene sect which bore the family surname. Caulkins devotes an entire chapter of over twenty pages to recounting the disturbances made by the followers of Rogers, and, particularly, his son, John, in publicly and noisily demonstrating contempt for the established church and its authority. They sought to be persecuted, fined, whipped, and imprisoned for their denunciations and disregard of civil and ecclesiastical prohibitions such as concerning Sabbath observance and marriage [Caulkins, New London, 200-221].
?About the beliefs and practices of the Rogerenes, the sect founded by John2 Rogers, and to which his father, James1 Rogers acceded, Felt in his 19th century Ecclesiastical History of New England wrote [Joseph B. Felt, The Ecclesiastical History of New England; Comprising Not Only Religious, But Also Moral, and Other Relations (Boston, Congregational Library Association, 1855-62), 691.
? ?...John Rogers...preached, baptized, gained a few disciples, formed a church, viewed as a new sect, designated as Rogerenes, or Rogerene Quakers, or sometimes Rogerene Baptists. He and his followers resolved to pursue a course which they knew was a disturbance of the public peace, and must bring on them the penalties of the law. They interrupted others in their worship, and denounced what they counted sacred. They were strong advocates for salvation by faith in Christ, for the Trinity, regeneration, resurrection of the just and unjust, and eternal judgment. They taught that it was right to obey civil government, except wherein opposed to conscience and religion; to pay town rates, but not those for ministers; to resist all civil power in divine worship. Like Sabbatarians, they held to immersion and rejection of the first clay, as Sabbath, but differed from them in other points. They considered all days alike, though they met on the first day for worship; still they worked freely when such service was over, at any part of the day. They had no meeting-houses, looking on a pulpit, steeple and salaried minister with abomination. They denied swearing by oath, and made no prayers in public worship or in the family. They believed that prayer should be mental, not vocal, except on special occasions, when prompted by the Holy Spirit. They used no means to recover health, except care, kindness and attention. They viewed all application to drugs, medicines and physicians, as sinful.?
?The adherence of James Rogers and his family to these views led to years of turbulence in the New London church and the invocation of fines by the civil authorities. That James Rogers was one of the wealthiest men in the town did not protect him from fines and persecutions, and he and his son, John, and others in the family actively promoted their views even to the extent on one occasion of occupying the meeting house on a Sunday to protest its use on that day for worship. Likewise James openly plowed his land on Sundays. [An agreeably written account of the Rogerenes is found in John R. Bolles, The Rogerenes...pt. II. History of the Rogerenes, by Anna B. Williams. (Boston: Stanhope Press, F.H. Gilson company, 1904).]
? ?James Rogers and his wife and children, and those connected with the latter as partners in marriage, with the exception of Samuel Rogers and wife, all became dissenters in some sort from the established Congregational church, which was then the only one recognized by the laws of the land. The origin of this dissent may be traced to an intercourse which began in the way of trade, with the Sabbatarians, or Seventh-day Baptists of Rhode Island. John and James Rogers, Jun., first embraced the Sabbatarian principles, and were baptized in 1674; Jonathan, in 1675; James Rogers, Sen., with his wife and daughter Bathsheba in 1676, and these were received as members of the Seventh-day church at Newport....
? ?From this time forth, John Rogers began to draw off from the Sabbatarians, and to broach certain peculiar notions of his own. He assumed the ministerial offices of baptizing and preaching, and having gained a few disciples, originated a new sect, forming a church or society, which were called Rogerenes, or Rogerene Quakers, and sometimes Rogerene Baptists. A great and predominant trait of the founder of the sect, and of his immediate followers, was their determination to be persecuted. They were aggressive, and never better pleased than when by shaking the pillars, they had brought down the edifice upon their own heads. They esteemed it a matter of duty, not only to suffer fines, distrainment, degradation, imprisonment and felonious penalties with patience, but to obtrude themselves upon the law, and challenge its power, and in fact to persecute others, by interrupting their worship, and vehemently denouncing what they esteemed sacred.
? ?Of their peculiar characteristics a brief summary must here suffice. In respect to baptism, and the rejection of the first day Sabbath, they agree with the Sabbatarians, but they diverge from them on other points. They consider all days alike in respect to sanctity, and though they meet for religious purposes on the first day of the week, when the exercise is over, they regard themselves as free to labor as on any other day. They have no houses set apart for public worship, and regard a steeple, a pulpit, a cushion, a church, and a salaried minister in a black suit of clothes, as utter abominations. They hold that a public oath is like any other swearing, a profanation of the Holy Name, and plainly forbidden in Scriptures. They make no prayers in public worship or in the family. John Rogers conceived that all prayers should be mental and not vocal, except on special occasions when the Spirit of God moving within, prompted the use of the voice. They use no means for the recovery of health, except care, kindness and attention,
considering all resort to drugs, medicines and physicians, as sinful. [Felt in the quote above may have used this language from Caulkins.] The entire rejection of the Sabbath, and of a resident ministry, were opinions exceedingly repugnant to the community at large, and were rendered more so by the violent and obtrusive manner in which they were propagated [Caulkins, New London, 205].?
?In June 1677 James and his wife, Elizabeth (Rowland) Rogers, and son, John were arraigned in court and fined £5 for profanation of the Sabbath by remaining at work?in the case of John who told the court he was making shoes. Caulkins cites numerous other court cases, and cites the will of James Rogers, meant to be observed without recourse to the courts by his heirs.
? ?The elder James Rogers was an upright, circumspect man. There is no account of any dealings with him and his wife on account of their secession from Mr. [Simon] Bradstreet?s church. No vote of expulsion or censure is recorded. Of his latter years little is known. Elder Hubbard, of Newport, is quoted...as stating that Mr. Rogers had one of his limbs severely bruised by the wheel of a loaded cart that passed over it, and that he himself saw him when he had remained for six weeks in a most deplorable condition, strenuously refusing the use of means to alleviate his sufferings, but patiently waiting in accordance with his principles, to be relieved by faith. Whether he recovered from this injury or not is unknown. His death occurred in February, 1687-8, when the government of Sir Edmund Andros was paramount in New England. His will was therefore proved in Boston. The first settlement of the estate was entirely harmonious. The children in accordance with the earnest request of their father, made an amicable division of the estate, which was sanctioned by the General Court, May 12th, 1692.
? ?The original will of Mr. Rogers is on file in the probate office of New London. It is in the handwriting of his son John, and remarkable for the simple solemnity of its preamble.
? ? ?The Last Will and Testament of James Rogers, Senr being in perfect memory and understanding but under the hand of God by sickness?this I leave with my wife and children, sons and daughters, I being old and knowing that the time of my departure is at hand. What I have of this world I leave among you, desiring you not to fall out or contend about it; but let your love one to another appear more than to the estate I leave with you, which is but of this world. And for your comfort I signify to you that I have a perfect assurance of an interest in Jesus Christ and an eternal happy state in the world to come, and do know and see that my name is written in the book of life, and therefore mourn not for me, as they that are without hope.?
? ?In a subsequent part of the document he says ?If any difference should arise, &c., my will is, that there shall be no lawing among my children before earthly judges, but that the controversy be ended by lot, and so I refer to the judgment of God, and as the lot comes forth, so shall it be [Ibid., 207-8].?
?To have nothing to do with ?authority? and its laws and ?lawing? was a principle of the Rogerenes. Miss Caulkins remarks, however, that ?In this respect unfortunately the will of the father was never accomplished: his children, notwithstanding their first pacific arrangement, engaged afterward in long and acrimonious contention, respecting boundaries, in the course of which earthly judges were often obliged to interfere and enforce a settlement? [Ibid., 208].?4
?James Swift Rogers included precise dates of birth for the six youngest children of this immigrant, stating that the ?births of the children are recorded in Milford? [Rogers Descendants 38], but only son Jonathan actually appears in those records.?3
In 1639 when James was 24, he married Elizabeth Rowland1, 3185, daughter of Samuel Rowland, in Stratford, CT.2,4 per Judd, citing James Swift Rogers, ?James Rogers of New London, Ct and His Descendants,? (Boston, by the author, 1902), 39. Elizabeth died ca 1709 in New London, CT.2 per Judd, citing James Swift Rogers, ?James Rogers of New London, Ct and His Descendants,? (Boston, by the author, 1902), 39.
Document dated 12 Sep 1688 gave children John and Bathshua ?oversight and management of the whole estate left with me by my deceased husband.?3
They had the following children:
2 i. Samuel (1640-1713)
3 ii. Joseph (1646-1697)
4 iii. John (1648-1721)
5 iv. Bathsheba (1650-1711)
6 v. James (1652-1713)
7 vi. Jonathan (1655-1697)
8 vii. Elizabeth (1658-1716)
https://sites.google.com/site/webstergriggsfamilies/griggs/rogers
Will:
? ?The original will of Mr. Rogers is on file in the probate office of New London. It is in the handwriting of his son John, and remarkable for the simple solemnity of its preamble.
? ? ?The Last Will and Testament of James Rogers, Senr being in perfect memory and understanding but under the hand of God by sickness?this I leave with my wife and children, sons and daughters, I being old and knowing that the time of my departure is at hand. What I have of this world I leave among you, desiring you not to fall out or contend about it; but let your love one to another appear more than to the estate I leave with you, which is but of this world. And for your comfort I signify to you that I have a perfect assurance of an interest in Jesus Christ and an eternal happy state in the world to come, and do know and see that my name is written in the book of life, and therefore mourn not for me, as they that are without hope.?
? ?In a subsequent part of the document he says ?If any difference should arise, &c., my will is, that there shall be no lawing among my children before earthly judges, but that the controversy be ended by lot, and so I refer to the judgment of God, and as the lot comes forth, so shall it be [Ibid., 207-8].?
?To have nothing to do with ?authority? and its laws and ?lawing? was a principle of the Rogerenes. Miss Caulkins remarks, however, that ?In this respect unfortunately the will of the father was never accomplished: his children, notwithstanding their first pacific arrangement, engaged afterward in long and acrimonious contention, respecting boundaries, in the course of which earthly judges were often obliged to interfere and enforce a settlement? [Ibid., 208].?4
https://sites.google.com/site/webstergriggsfamilies/griggs/rogers
James** married Elizabeth** Rowland in 1639 in Stratford, New London Co, Connecticut. Elizabeth** (daughter of Samuel* Rowland) was born about 1614; died about 1709 in New London Co, Connecticut. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]
|
1713 - 1754 (40 years)