An answer to a book lately put forth by Peter Pratt, entituled, The prey taken from the strong. Wherein by mocks and scoffs, together with a great number of positive falshoods, the author hath greatly abused John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, since his death. : In which answer there is a true and impartial relation of those sufferings of John Rogers, on which the author has built his abuses: as also many of the said scoffs, falshoods, blasphemous expressions, great abuses of Scripture, together with many gross contradictions and ignorant speeches contained in said book; all which are discovered and plainly proved, / By John Rogers. ; [Six lines of Scripture texts]

An answer to a book lately put forth by Peter Pratt, entituled, The prey taken from the strong. Wherein by mocks and scoffs, together with a great number of positive falshoods, the author hath greatly abused John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, since his death. : In which answer there is a true and impartial relation of those sufferings of John Rogers, on which the author has built his abuses: as also many of the said scoffs, falshoods, blasphemous expressions, great abuses of Scripture, together with many gross contradictions and ignorant speeches contained in said book; all which are discovered and plainly proved, / By John Rogers. ; [Six lines of Scripture texts]

An answer to a book lately put forth by Peter Pratt, entituled, The prey taken from the strong. Wherein by mocks and scoffs, together with a great number of positive falshoods, the author hath greatly abused John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, since his death. : In which answer there is a true and impartial relation of those sufferings of John Rogers, on which the author has built his abuses: as also many of the said scoffs, falshoods, blasphemous expressions, great abuses of Scripture, together with many gross contradictions and ignorant speeches contained in said book; all which are discovered and plainly proved, / By John Rogers. ; [Six lines of Scripture texts]

Table of contents

Title page

To the Sober READER.

A Poetical Enquiry what Advantage P. Pratt could promise himself by his late Engagement with a Dead Man.

An Answer to a Book, &c.

§

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

AN ANSWER To a BOOK lately put forth By Peter Pratt, Entituled, ThePrey taken from the Strong. Wherein by Mocks and Scoffs, together with a great number of positive Falshoods, the Author hath greatly abused John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, since his Death.

In which Answer there Is a true and impartial Relation of those Sufferings of John Rogers, on which the Author has built his Abuses: As also many of the said Scoffs, Falshoods, blasphemous Expressions, great abuses of Scripture, together with many gross Contradictions and ignorant Speeches contained in said Book; all which are discovered and plainly proved,

By JOHN ROGERS.

Isai. 5.20. Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put Darkness for light, and light for darkness.

Job 11.3. Should thy lies make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed?

To the Sober READER.

[Page]

AS it has ever been allowed, that the defaming of the Dead is a mark of the most unmanly and base Spirit of a Coward, and ought to be abhorred by all Persons who bear the Image of Men; then how much more abominable is it of P. P. to sport himself with his own Lies over a Man in his Grave? And I think no Person of common Reason will expect any Apology from me on account of this my Undertaking, since my Silence in this matter would have rendered me very unmanly.

And therefore I shall proceed to inform the Reader what parts of his Book I have undertaken to answer.

And first, As to his first Chap. where he pretends to give an account of his being led into and recovered from Quakerism; I have remarked so much of his own Relation of the matter, that I think will be sufficient to satisfy every Person that knows any thing of the Work of God wrought upon their Hearts, that what he calls his being led into Quakerism, was the Day of his Visitation, and a gracious Call of God in Mercy to his Soul; and also what he calls his Recovery from Quakerism, was nothing else [Page]but his Apostacy, being overcome by Persecution, &c.

And as to his Songs which he adds to the Account of his Recovery from Quakerism, wherein he pretends to praise God for his Recovery, &c. I have briefly remark'd some of the gross Blasphemies therein contained; as also shewed by Scripture, that it is no other than the practice of Hypocrites in former Ages in their Hypocrisy, to imitate the Praises of God's People.

And as to what he says in his second Chap. wherein he pretends to give an account of the principal Heads of Quakerism, I have only remark'd some gross Contradictions and ignorant Expressions in which he abuses J. R. and I have refered the Reader to J. R's. Books, which will sufficient discover the Author's Folly and Malice; and which Books I have sufficient by me to supply any that desire Satisfaction in his Principles.

And as to his third Chap. wherein he pretends to give an Account of the unreasonableness of J. R's. Boasting of his sufferings, and to offer some advice to such as hold his Principles. I have particularly proved all his Charges against J. R. to be notoriously false in every Article; and that the advice which he gives to such as hold his Principles, is nothing else but his own gross Darkness and Ignorance, by which he wrests the holy Scriptures and abuses the Messengers of God.

Also I have given a true and impartial Relation of those sufferings of J. R. on which the Author has built his abuses.

[Page] And as to what he has said concerning the Quaker's Principles, I have wholly omitted, and that for these following Reasons.

First, Because I am not in fellowship with them, and therefore it is not my Business to meddle in their Quarrel.

Secondly, Although I abhor the abusing of any Sect, yet because I know them to be a numerous People, both wealthy and learned, and that they are in as good Esteem in the highest Courts of England as any of the Dissenters in the Kingdom, and therefore have no need of such mean Help as mine, but are well able to defend themselves against far more wise and potent Enemies than P. P. And I am well knowing that P. P. is a Man wholly ignorant concerning the Principles of the Quakers, being brought up and always living in Connecticut Colony, where he has never had the opportunity of acquainting himself with either their Persons or Books. And for as much as I have been well knowing to his management from a Child, I have sufficient grounds to be well satisfied that he never had one Hours Discourse with a Quaker in his life, as to matters of Religion, excepting a few Words formerly with one Chaddack, a young Man who was then inclining to the Quakers, and since is joyned in fellowship with them at Rhoad-Island; which discouse he has often told me of: nor do I suppose that he was ever at a Quakers Meeting in his Life, nor has ever seen any of their Books, excepting only Robert Barkley's Apology, which he lately borrowed.

[Page] And as to the many Quotations out of the Quaker's Books, which he has made use of against the Quakers, I do affirm they are every one taken out of one Sheet of Paper, put forth by one George Keith, a Man which I well knew, and who was as famous for changing his Religion, as P. P. himself. For first he was a Presbyterian in Scotland, then turned Quaker, and so remained many years; after which he turned Church man, and then bent his whole force to revile and reproach the Quakers: and among other of his Writings against them, he put forth this Sheet above-mentioned, wherein he greatly abused their Books, by taking and leaving such parts as might most destroy the sense. And one Daniel Leeds an Almanack-maker, and a great Friend to the said Keith, Transcribed the same Quotations out of the above-mentioned Sheet of Paper, and put them into his Almanack; and I do affirm, that every individual Quotation in P. P's. Book which he brings against the Quakers, he has taken out of the above-named Sheet or old Almanack; and I am ready to satisfy any Person of the truth of what I here assert, that pleases to call at my House, for as much as I have one of the same Sheets and Almanacks by me ready to compare with his Book, by which it is manifest that he never saw those Books out of which these Quotations were taken.

And indeed it was great folly in him so to expose himself, as to pretend to inform others in the Principles of the Quakers, when at the same time himself knew not what a Quaker was, as appears by his calling J. R. a Quaker, who was [Page]the greatest Writer against and publick Opposer of the Quakers, in the chief Principles wherein they differ from other Sects, that ever was in Connecticut Colony, as his Books will largely make appear.

And it is marvellous that P. P. should be so prompt with only licking up some of the Vomit of such an Apostate as G. Keith out of an old Almanack, as to undertake to inform the World that he would shew them the principal Heads of Quakerism, in the first second and third steps of its Progress in the World, as he promises in his 39th. page.

Also in the same page he promises to shew J. R's. Opinions, without any reference to his Books, for which he renders several reasons, (as he calls them) First, says he, Because I don't need them.

To which I answer, That this is a very unintelligible and Childish Reason; for we know that the Reason why Authors quote the Books of them they write against, is not because they want them themselves, but because the Reader wants them, that they may thereby be satisfied of the truth of what the Author charges them with.

The second Reason he gives is, Because (says he) they contain but few of his Principles.

To which Reason I quaery as follows, That if J. R's. Books contain but few of his Principles, then how comes P. P. to know what his Principles are several years after his Death? except the same Spirit which once deceived him in the matter of Longitude, has again deceived [Page]him concerning J. R's. Principles; and we have as much Reason to question the truth of what he tells us of J. R's. Principles, (since he makes no better proof than his own bare Word) as the General Assembly had to question the truth of his Longitude, which soon after proved to be a Delusion of Satan.

Now by these foolish and vain pretended Reasons, the Reader may plainly see, that he only wanted an excuse to evade J. R's. Books, that he might take his full swing to bely and abuse him at his pleasure; because he well knew that if he had Quoted his Books, they would have discovered his Lies and Falshoods.

But I should not have enlarged so much upon this head, were it not that I am sensible that there are many thousands of grown Persons in this Colony, that for want of opportunity to be informed in the Principles of other Sects, remain so ignorant, that they know no difference between the Church of England and the Papists, nor between the Quakers and the Baptists, but esteem each couple to be alike.

And how is it possible that such Persons should be able to discern the Ignorance of P. P.?

In the next place I shall mind the Reader, that in all his charges against J. R. (the dead Man with whom he has engaged War) he has not proved one Article of his charges; excepting where he pretends to give an Account of his Principles, at the end of every falshood he adds the name Rogers, which if that may pass for sufficient Proof, I must confess that he has found out a new Art, [Page]which may be as helpful to the Historian as his Longitude might have been to the Mariner, had it but fell with the right side up, for by this new way of proof, the Historian may write what he pleases as P. P. has done, and at the end place but the name Rogers, will be as good proof as any in P. P's. Book.

And whereas it has ever been allowed by the wise and learned, that the very Marrow and Life of all Books consists in good proof, without which Books are no better than idle Tales, and are but an abuse to the Reader.

Then how marvellous is it that P. P. who knew himself to be a Man so unconstant and changable, not only in his worldly concerns from his very Childhood, but also in matters of Religion since he has arrived to riper years, should presume to put out a Book only on his bare Word, without any proof at all.

Surely he might reasonably have thought that all who knew him, would expect better Proof from such an unconstant Person, than from another Man.

However, since I have taken upon me the trouble of proving the main Articles of his Book to be false, I hope it will be a good motive to convince him, that his word is not a sufficient foundation to build any more of his Book on.

Yet if he should presume to do it, I think no solid Person who shall read and consider this present Answer to his Book, will judge it worth my while to follow him any farther.

And for as much as I abhor the publishing of such Romance Books as have no Proof but the [Page]Author's bare Word, and so tend only to waste and consume the precious time of the Reader, and leaves the Reader as Ignorant as it sound him; so the Reader will find that I have been at considerable trouble and Charge in procuring good Proof to all the main Articles that I have asserted throughout this Treatise, by which the Readers will be assured of the Truth of what they Read, which doubtless will be better satisfaction than the other.

In the last place I shall observe to the Reader, that throughout my whole Treatise wheresoever I have had occasion to make use of Testimonies, I have taken such Persons as the Reader may be sensible are most knowing to the matter they testify to. (As for Instance)

In page 56th. P. P. affirms, that great part of J. R's. Imprisonment at Hartford, was upon strong suspicion of his being accessary to the Burning of New-London Meeting-house. Now tho' I might have had multitudes of Witnesses that would have testified that this affirmation was false, yet I took the pains of going more than fifty Miles to get the Jaylor's own Testimony, because every one knows that he was well knowing to the matter. Also as to the great Horror which P. P.'s Father fell into before his Death, on account of his Marrying J. R's. Wife, tho' multitudes of People were knowing to it, it being the Publick Discourse of the Country in the time of it; yet I have taken both Witnesses out of one Family of his near Neighbours, and a House which he was most Intimate at of any House in the Town, as is well known to the ancient [Page]Neighbours thereabouts; and so in many other cases I have done the like, as the Reader may easily discern.

And although P. P. did sufficiently discover his unmanliness to the World, by picking a Quarrel with a dead Man, as he himself is forced to confess in the beginning of his Book; yet had he but used fair play in the time of his Engagement, I should never have concerned my self in the Quarrel, being well satisfied that he never could thereby have hurt his Antagonist. But when I saw him begin to use such abominable soul play, I thought it proper to step between them, and take his Weapon out of his hand, judging that a Wooden Sword might better suit his Courage.

And whether any Person in the vindication of a dead Father would have done less than I have done, I freely leave to the Judgment of all Mankind.

John Rogers.

A Poetical Enquiry what Advantage P. Pratt could promise himself by his late Engagement with a Dead Man.

[Page]

I Marvel that when Peter Pratt

in Armour did appear,

HE should engage in such a Rage

a Man that's dead three Year.

Could he suppose for to disclose

his Valour in the Field,

Or by his Word, or wooden Sword

to make his En'my yield?

Did he advance, thinking by chance

and taking so much pain,

To fright away a lump of Clay,

some Honour for to gain?

Was his intent, by Argument

some Honour for to have?

Or gain Repute, by making mute

a Man that's in his Grave?

Why did he strain his foolish Brain,

and muse upon his Bed,

To study Lies, for to despise

a Man when he is dead?

[Page] Why did he flout his Venom out

against the harmless Dirt?

Which when alive, did never strive

to do the Creature hurt.

No manly Face, or godly Grace

such Actions will uphold,

Yet 'tis not new, Apostates crew

did do the like of old.

When Cain let in that dreadful Sin,

which never could be pardon'd,

He then did hate his loving Mate,

because he was so harden'd.

Tho' Saul before, did much adore

his well-beloved David,

Yet in the state which I relate,

his Life he greatly craved.

In Judas we may also see

another strange Disaster,

Who for small gain, did take such pain

to sell his blessed Master.

Apostates then, the vilest Men

They're always most forlorn;

Because such Deeds from them proceeds,

which other Men do scorn.

Such raging Waves Satan depraves

of all Humanity;

They can embrace no saving Grace,

nor yet Civility.

[Page] Had but this Strife been in the Life

of his supposed Foe,

Then Peter Pratt would like a Rat,

into a Corner go;

Or flee apace, or hide his Face,

Although that now he glories,

To trample on, one dead and gone,

with his debauched Stories.

An Answer to a Book, &c.

[Page]

AND first, I shall begin with his Advertisement, which I shall have occasion to speak to hereafter, which is as follows.

This Treatise was begun in the Life-time of John Rogers, and by the best Advice finished since his Death; tho' not without much Reluctancy in the Author, as Judging it less Manly to Write against One whom the Clods of the Valley forbid to Answer for himself: Upon which Account John Rogers 's Character, is used with as much Tenderness as the Subject will possibly allow of.

In page 2d. of his Preface says he,

In the next Place, I have given you the main Heads of the New-London Quakerism, an Heresie Advanced and Maintained there by John Rogers, late of that Town, Deceased, and to this Day adhered to by many Persons thereabout.

Reply, This short Paragraph is sufficient to satisfy all Persons who are knowing to the Quakers Principles, that P. P. is wholly Ignorant as to the Principles wherein the Quakers differ from other Sects, which appears by his charging J. R. with advancing and maintaining Quakerism, who in his life-time was the only Man in Connecticut [Page]Colony (as I have ever heard of) that did Publickly in Print oppose the Quakers, in those main Principles wherein they differ from other Sects. And for the better satisfaction of such Persons who have not had opportunity to be informed wherein the Quakers mainly differ from other Sects, and thereby may be as ignorant as P. P. who I suppose never was at a Quakers Meeting in his life; nor has he excepting very lately, had the opportunity of seeing any of their Books.

I shall first mention what are the main Points wherein they differ from other Sects.

And secondly I shall Quote out of J. R.'s Books, wherein he has confuted them in those Points.

First, they deny Water Baptism.

Secondly, they deny the Bread and Wine called the Lord's Supper.

Thirdly, they hold that the Light which is in the Hearts of all Mankind by which they discern Good and Evil, is Christ.

And Fourthly, many of them deny the Resurrection of the Body.

And these are the four main Points wherein they differ from other Sects, as they themselves will grant if demanded; and that J. R. hath largely vindicated all these Principles against them, may be seen first in his Book entituled, A Midnight Cry from the Temple of God, to the ten Virgins. Beginning at page 48 concerning Baptism, and in page 82 of the same Book, begins concerning the Lord's Supper. And in the second part of the same Book, beginning at the first [Page]page he largely proves that the Light within is not the Christ. To which Discourse he adds an Exposition on most of those Scriptures which the Quakers commonly make use of to prove their Assertion.

And lastly, in his Exposition on the Revelations, he largely proves the Resurrection of the Body, beginning at page 232.

Thus it appears that it is nothing else but P.P.'s ignorance in charging J. R. with advancing and maintaining Quakerism, since he was the most publick opposer of it in Connecticut Colony. And this I give as a general Answer throughout his Book, wheresoever he shall ignorantly call J. R. a Quaker.

In Page 6th (says he) It remains that I speak of the third step in Quakerism, taken by J. R. who received his first notions of Spirituality from Banks and Case, a couple of lewd Men of that sort called singing Quakers, &c. These Men as they danced through this Colony, &c. lit of J. R. and made a Quaker of him; but neither they nor the Spirit could teach him to sing, &c. However, he remained their Disciple for a while, and then being wiser than his Teachers, made a transition to the Church of the seventh-day Baptists; but the same Spirit not deserting him, but setting in with the disposition of his own Spirit, to a vehement affectation of Precedency; he Resolved to reach it, though it should happen to lead to singularity; whereupon after a few Revelations, he resolved upon Quakerism again, though under a modification somewhat new, I call it Quakerism, not but that he differed from them in many things, yet holding with them in the main, being guided by the same Spirit, acknowledging [Page]their Spirit, and they his, be must needs be called a Quaker.

Reply, That every Article of this whole Paragraph (so far as it relates to J. R.) is notoriously false; for the proof of which I have taken these following Testimonies from two of his ancient Neighbours, which tho' they have always been Enemies to his Principles, yet have been very free in giving their Testimonies to the Truth, signifying their abhorrence of such an abuse done to a dead Man.

§

THE Testimony of Daniel Stubbins, aged about eighty Years Testifieth, that from a Lad I have been a near Nighhour and well acquainted with John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, to his dying day, and do testify, that the time that he first pretended to a spiritual Conversation, and declared himself to be a Converted Man, upon which he broke off from the Presbyterian Church in New-London, and joyned with the seventhday Baptists, and his Wife thereupon left him and went to her Father Matthew Griswold of Lyme, was about the year 1674. and the time that Case and Banks, with a great Company of other Ranters first came into this Colony, was about twelve years after; and I never heard or understood that J. Rogers ever inclined to their way, or left any of his former Principles on their account.

[Page]

Dated in New-London, June 27th. 1725.

Daniel Stubbins, D his Mark.

§

THE Testimony of Mary Tubs, aged about seventy seven years, Testifieth, that I was a near Neighbour to John Rogers late of New-London, deceased, at the time when his Wife left him and went to her Father Matthew Griswold of Lyme, and I had discourse with her the same day she went, and she informed me, that it was because her Husband had renounced his Religion, and was joyned with the seventh-day Baptists, and this was about the year 1674. and it was many years after that one Case and Banks, with a great Company of Ranters first came into this Colony, and came to New-London, and were some days at the House of James Rogers, where John Rogers then dwelt; but I never understood that John Rogers inclined to their way or Principles, or countenanced their Practices, but continued in the Religion which he was in before. Dated in New-London, June 29th. 1725.

Mary Tubs.

Now the first Falshood which I shall observe in this place, is his asserting that the first notions of Spirituality taken by J. R. was from Case and Banks, &c. Whereas the above Witnesses Testily, [Page]that he had broke off from the Church of New-London, and joyned with the Seventh-day Baptists; upon which account his Wife had left him. And that all this was many years before Case and Banks first came into this Colony.

The second Falshood is his saying, These Men, &c. lit of J. R. and made a Quaker of him; whereas these Witnesses Testify, that he never inclined to their way, nor countenanced their Practices, but continued in the Religion which he was in before.

The third Falshood is his saying, He remained their Disciple for a while, since it is fully proved that he never was their Disciple at all.

The fourth Falshood is his saying, That after be had remained their Disciple a while, be made a transition to the Church of the seventh-day Baptists.

Whereas it is fully proved, that his joyning with the seventh-day Baptists was many years before those People first came into this Colony.

Another positive Falshood is his asserting, That the Quakers acknowledged his Spirit, and be theirs.

For as much as they always denied him, and would not suffer him to Preach in their Assemblies.

And although he did allow that the People called Quakers at their first coming forth, and separating from the World, were the faithful Children of God, the same also he confessed of Luther, and the Martyrs in Queen Mary's time; yet it would be as weak an Argument as P. P.'s for any to say, that because J. R. acknowledged the Spirit of Luther, that therefore he must needs be called a Lutheran, or Church of England Man.

[Page] And we find both by the Old and New-Testament, that the Church of God seldom remained in a state of Purity so long as fifty years at any one time. Nay, some of the Churches that were brought into the Faith by Paul, were so far subverted before his Death, that they were turned from him, as is to be seen 1 Tim 1.15. This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me, &c. We also find that the Church of Sardis, in the Apostle John's time was so declined, that they had only a Name to live, and were dead. By which I understand, that although they retained their outward form of Worship, yet had lost the Spirit of God, and were got into the Spirit of the World, Rev. 3.1.

And that J. R. always Testified, that the Quakers were fallen from their first love, is well known.

But now I would mind the Reader of his Consession and Promise in his Advertisement. First, he confesses his unmanliness in writing aginst a dead Man, which I doubt not but will be the Judgment of all sober Persons as well as himself.

2dly. His Promise, upon which account (says he) J. R.'s Character is used with as much tenderness as the subject will possibly allow of. From which it may justly be supposed, that the subject of his Book is Envy and Malice against J. R. the dead Man with whom he has proclaimed War; Since it will admit of no tenderness at all, as appears by the five Falshoods already proved, which by the heat of his first Engagement, has caused him to vomit up. And I would advise him not [Page]to make Lies his refuge, nor hide himself under Falshoods, as some have done, Isa. 28.15.

And whereas among his other Scoffs and Falshoods, he asserts that J. R. often changed his Principles. To which I answer, That upon condition that P. P. will make it appear that J. R. ever altered or varied in any one Article of his Religion, since his separating from the Presbyterians, and joyning with the seventh-day Baptists, which is more than fifty years past, (excepting only as to the observation of the seventh day) I will reward him with the sum of twenty Pounds for his labour. No verily, he mistakes the Man, it was not J. R. that used to change his Religion, but it was P. P. himself.

In page 7th. he makes this observation, viz. that there are certain times which pass over some Men, in which they are in more eminent danger of departing from the Faith, and giving heed to seducing Spirits.

One (says he) is the time of sore Affliction &c.

We know (says he) the Jews under Dark and Afflictive Providences Murmured and fell to Idolatry.

Reply. Here he greatly abuses the Scripture through his own ignorance; for the Scripture abundantly informs us, that it was in Prosperity that the Jews fell to Idolatry, and that God's usual way to bring them out of their Idolatry was, by sending sore Afflictions on them.

Another time (says he) is when a Man has suffered very unjust Treatment from Men, as he conceives, and having applied to the Authority [Page]for Relief, but not obtaining it, he'll be tempted to think uncharitably of and rail against them; which if he allows himself to do, his next Temptation will be to fall away to some party that opposes them; and this was the case of one Gates in New-London County.

Reply. If this was the case of Gates, viz. that he suffered very unjust Treatment from Men as he conceived, and applying to the Authority for Relief, but obtaining none; then it was very agreeable to Scripture, to withdraw from such a corrupted People, where the common People were so corrupted as to treat their Neighbours very unjustly; and the Authority whom God has set up to punish evil doers so corrupted, as to grant no Relief in such cases; surely these were great Disorders, and it was highly commendable in Gates to obey the command of the holy Scripture, 2 Thes. 3.6. Now we command you, Brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly, &c.

In Page 8th he quaeries as follows; And what could I have done less than to have displayed Signals of Danger over those fatal Rocks and Sands, on which I had suffered Shipwreck?

Reply, I suppose he here intends a Spiritual Shipwreck, for that he never has been a Man concerned in Sea Affairs: And for as much as I know of no Spiritual Shipwreck mentioned in Scripture, but that of Faith and a good Conscience, which I am sure he has suffered; and that he may stand for a Signal to be a Warning to others, is my earnest desire: And if any Person [Page]should happen to fall into the Longitude of those Rocks and Sands, I would advise them to look out sharp, and they will see more signals than P. P. viz. Hymeneus and Alexander, who are signals of the same Rocks and Sands. 1 Tim. 1.19, 20. Holding Faith and a good Conscience, which some having put away, concerning Faith have made Shipwreck. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, &c. And also as History informs us of Francis Spira, who like P. P. denyed the Truth by Publick Recantation, and thereby was received into the favour of the World, and so stands for a signal with the other three above mentioned.

And now we are come to his first Chap. which is as follows.

CHAP. 1st. Giving an Account of the Author's being led into, and his Recovery from Quakerism.

My near alliance to John Rogers (then Junior) who is my Brother, (viz.) the Son of my Mother, proved an unhappy Snare to me. He being naturally a Man as Manly, Wise, Facetious and Generous, perhaps as one among a thousand, I was exceedingly delighted in and with his Conversation. He also indeared himself to me very much by his repeated Expressions of Complacency in me, by which I was induced to be frequently in his company, and often at his House, where his Father would be entertaining of me with Exhortations to a Religious life, warning me of the danger of Sin, and certainty of that Wrath which shall come on all that know not God, &c. I would some times for Curiosity be enquiring into his Principles, and other times for Diversion be disputing [Page]a point with him; but I knew not that the dead were there, Prov. 7.24. I was not Religious enough to be much concerned about his Principles, but pitiful enough to be extreamly moved with the Story of his Sufferings, &c. I had also a reserve in his favour, that it was possible he might be a good Man, (the strangeness of his Doctrine notwithstanding) especially seeing all his Sufferings were not able to shake his Constancy, or oblige him to recede from the least part of his Religion.

Reply. Here I observe, that he owns that J. R. would be entertaining him with Exhortations to a Religious life, warning him of the danger of Sin, and certainty of that Wrath which shall come on all that know not God.

To which I answer, This was the same Doctrine which the Prophets and Apostles taught their Hearers, as may be seen Mat. 3.2. Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Verse 7. Who hath warned you to flee from the Wrath to come, &c. To which he Replies, That he knew not that the dead were there; Prov. 7.24. And in the very next words adds, That he was not Religious enough to be much concerned about his Principles. By which the Reader may easily discern that the dead was there sure enough, that is P. P. was there, who was dead in Sins and Trespasses, not being Religious enough to be concerned to live a Righteous Life, or to take warning of the danger of Sin, and certainty of the Wrath of God, which is Revealed from Heaven against all Ungodliness and Unrighteousness of Men, &c. Rom. 1.18. Now if he intends J. R's. Exhortation by the dead being [Page]there, I think it is because he is in that state of darkness spoken of, Isai. 5.20. Wo unto them that call Evil Good, and Good Evil; that put Darkness for Light, and Light for Darkness, &c.

But he acknowledges that he was pitiful enough to be extreamly moved with the Story of his Sufferings.

To which I answer, That whoever should be made sensible of J. Rogers's Sufferings, had they not an Heart of Stone, would be as much moved with pity as P. P. since I suppose the like has not been known in the Kingdom of England for some Ages past; and which continued for more than forty five Years.

He also confesses, that he had a reserve in his Favour, that possibly he might be a good Man, &c. especially seeing all his Sufferings were not able to shake his Constancy, or oblige him to recede from the least part of his Religion.

Reply, I must confess this Reason of P. P. is very sound, and agreeable with the Scripture; and sufficiently proves that J. R. was not like the stony Ground spoken of Mat. 13.20, 21. But he that receiveth the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it: Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while; for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the Word, by and by he is offended. But says P. P. All his Sufferings were not able to shake his Constancy, or oblige him to recede from the least part of his Religion.

This olso proves him to be one of those which Christ speaks of Mat. 7.24, 25. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them, I[Page]will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock: and the Rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.

At length (says he) my Brother became a very strict and devout Professor of his Father's Religion, and so became less sociable, tell at length our Conversation was almost wholly suspended for divers Years.

Reply, Here it is observable, that when his Brother became a strict and devout Professor of his Father's Religion, and himself remained in his vain Conversation, they could no longer retain their former Fellowship.

Which well agrees with the Testimony of the holy Scripture, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. For what fellowship hath Righteousness with Unrighteousness? and what communion hath Light with Darkness? And what Concord hath Christ with Belial? And what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel?

In page 2d. he enters upon his account of his first being led into Quakerism, as he calls it.

He says, it pleased God in a solitary moment to bring into his thoughts those words, Forsake the Foolish and live, and go in the way of understanding. Prov. 9.6. He says, he understood them to suggest that if he would live Eternally, he must forsake his Sins, which the Scripture calls Folly, and his vain Companions, which the Scripture calls Fools.

In page 3d he says, he took the Words as a Reproof of his vain Course of life, and a Counsel and Invitation to him to walk with the wise & be wise. Whereupon (says he) I fully resolved from Thenceforth to turn from Sin to God, and accordingly [Page]began to set up a strict and Religious Course of Life, to reform the Errors of my ways, to Pray to God in secret, &c.

In page 5th. he goes on to give an account how incessantly he cryed to God for Mercy and Grace by secret Prayer, and how the Devil opposed him in his secret Prayer. And in page 6th. he gives an Account how earnestly he cryed to God to rebuke those foul Spirits, and how instantly God answered his Prayer, and caused them to vanish away.

In page 7th. he gives an Account how he began to Question whether he had not been in the way of an Erroneous and Heterodox Religion; and that upon this doubt with all possible Earnestness he asked Counsel of the Wonderful Counsellor, and Wisdom of him that gives it liberally to all.

In the remaining part of this 7th. page, together with the 8th. and part of the 9th. he still goes on to shew what scruples and doubts he was in as to the several forms of Religion; and in the latter part of the 9th. page he gives an Account how Earnestly he cryed to God to direct him in the matter, which he gives in manner following.

In this distress I poured out my Soul to God in Prayer, I implored the Guidance of his Word and Spirit, I confessed my lost and Sinful Estate, but I told him of his Word, Hos. 13.9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, but in me is thy help found.

I flew to our Saviour's Words, That if a Son ask Bread, the Father will not give him a Stone. [Page]Luke 11.11. and pleaded them in this manner: O thou that hearest Prayers, and hast never said to the seed of Jacob, seek ye me in vain; who art a fountain of light and truth, and therefore the Sons of Men believe thy Word, behold the promise of thy Son, which I now humbly plead before thee. I implore the Bread of Life, and the knowledge of the Truth. Wilt thou now send me strong Delusions to believe lies, and so let his Words fall to the ground? Surely thou wilt not, for they are settled in Heaven, and more permanent than the Heavens or the Earth, and I will believe them, and adventure my Soul thereupon.

In page 11th he tells us, That after this he soon laid aside Family-Prayer, could see no Rule for the practice of it.

The eighth of January, (says he) being the Lord's-Day, I doubted so much of the Sabbath, that I dared not go to Meeting.

The 22d of January I thought it my Duty to Labour as on other Days, and I did so.

Now that which is observable in the Relation which he has been giving is, that when he came to fear that he had been in the way of an erroneous and heterodox Religion, and resolved to examine it, and thereupon asked Counsel of the Wonderful Counsellor, as he says he did, and earnestly pleaded with God to give him the knowledge of the Truth, and that he might not be held under strong Delusions to believe lies.

And now God is graciously pleased to discover to him those strong Delusions, which he had so long been deceived by, in thinking to please God by attending formal and customary Prayers, [Page]which he had been taught by Tradition, and had been practising in his unregenerate state, while he was in fellowship with Hypocrites, who always love to pray in Synagogues and publick places, which Christ forbids his Disciples to practice, Mat. 6.5.

Another strong Delusion which is now discovered to him upon his earnest Prayer, is concerning the first Day, which in his unregenerate state he thought to be a Sabbath; but upon this answer of Prayer, he thought it his Duty to labour on as on other Days, and did so. So also when he saw no Rule for the practice of his formal Prayer, he soon laid it aside: All which proves his faithfulness to God at that time, by yielding Obedience to what God discovered to him.

Page 12th he declares, that on the 26th of January he was carried to Prison for refusing to pay a fine laid on him for prophaning the Sabbath last before. In the same page he tells us, how some laboured to allure him by prospects of worldly Advantage; and in page 13th. some cursed him in the Streets, wishing him dead, &c. Others by mocking and other verbal abuses ministred such Provocations, as one would think nothing but a Stock or Stone would have been silent under.

Reply. This is no new thing, but hath always been the practice of the wicked World to persecute, Mock, Deride and Revile Gods faithful Children, as both Old and New-Testaments do abundantly inform us. Mat. 5.11. Blessed are you when Men shall Revile you, and Persecute you, and [Page]shall say all manner of Evil against you falsly for my sake. Rejoyce and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heaven: For so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you. Joh. 15.18, 19. If the World hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the World, the World would love its own: but because ye are not of the World, but I have chosen you out of the World, therefore the World hateth you. 1 Joh. 3.13. Marvel not, my Brethren, if the world hate you. Isai. 59.15. Yea, truth faileth, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey. Isai. 51.7. Hearken unto me, ye that know Righteousness, the people in whose heart is my Law, fear ye not the reproach of Men, neither be ye afraid of their Revilings. Jer. 15.10. Wo is me, my mother, that thou hast born me a man of strife, and a man of contention to the whole earth: I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury, yet every one of them doth curse me.

In the 13th. page he also tells us, how that in the Morning before he went to Prison, he committed all concerns and Interests to God by solemn Prayer, and that taking a sad farewel of his Wife, addressed himself to the Journey, taking a Bible with him.

He also largely sets forth how great and terrible his Tryals were, in forsaking his dear Wife, with all other valuables in this World.

In page 14th. says he, Under these pressing Burthens I went to New-London, about sixteen miles from my own House, lifting up my Heart to God by the way, in thousands of Ejaculations, with the most vehement application of Mind.

Reply. This account which he gives of his giving up in this great Trial is sufficient to [Page]prove, that the great Love of God was shed abroad in his Heart at that time, by which he was enabled to forsake his dear Wife, with all other Earthly things for Christ's sake, and as Christ says, Mat. 10.37, 38. He that loveth Father or Mother more than me, is not worthy of me: and he that loveth Son or Daughter more than me, is not worthy of me; then may we safely conclude, that such as love Christ above all Earthly things, and are ready to take up their Cross and follow him, are worthy of him, all which P. P. then did.

He also tells us, how that in this great Tryal, he lift up his Heart to God in thousands of Ejaculations, with the most vehement application of Mind, &c.

He still goes on in this 14th. page to set forth the great aggravations of his Tryals, by the Insulting of the Jaylor over him, also the going into a dark Goal without Fire or Lodgings, in a very cold Season, &c.

In the 15th. page he says, ‘Under these Agonies, his Flesh and Heart cryed out for God, for the strong and living God, I supplicated his Mercy for Christ sake, (says he) confessing my Sin and Misery; I Blessed him for his Word, and appealed to his Omnisciency, that I desired to keep his Precepts. I implored his Spirit to help my Infirmities, and to lead me into all Truth.’

After this, (says he) looking into my Bible I lit upon the eighth Chap. to the Rom. and read on to the 35th. Verse, whereupon I was blown up into an extatick Joy: I thought I [Page]had now assurance of my Union to Christ, & that nothing should separate me from his Love.

This Rapture lasted me that Night, &c.

I was (says he) in the Goal five days, in which time J. R. and his Company often visited and treated me with sufficient Expressions of their tenderest Regard; Providing me a Lodging in the Goaler's House the first Night, otherwise 'tis like I should have dyed of the Cold, being a Man of a tender Constitution, and not innured to hardships; and afterwards they furnished me with Lodging and other things for my Comfort, during my Imprisonment, &c.

Page 16th. he tells us, That the next Remarkable that happened, was upon Reading Rom. 10.9, 10. If thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt Believe with thine Heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart Man Believeth unto Righteousness, and with the mouth Confession is made unto Salvation.

Page 17th. He tells us, that his Sorrows were now turned into Joy, and his Prayers into Praises of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

In the same page (says he) on the fifth day of my Confinement, my wife (against my express Prohibition) having paid the Fine, and procured a Mandamus to the Goaler to discharge me, the Messenger came in the Morning. This was surprising and unwelcome news to me, for that Morning I had awaked in a [Page]marvellous Calm, every thing was pleasant and easy to me, &c.

Page 18th. (says he) Amongst other things I had a desire to be Baptised by J. R. Those words in Acts 22.16. ran much in my mind, And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be Baptised, and wash away thy Sins, &c. And accordingly I was Baptised of him, as soon as released from Prison, by burying my Body in the Water. After which I went home, it being Tuesday.

And now we are got through the account which he gives of his being led into Quakerism, as in his gross darkness he calls it.

Now the next account he is entering upon, is what he calls his recovery out of Quakerism, which in truth is nothing else but his Apostacy, being overcome by Persecution, according to what is written Mat. 13.20, 21. Concerning the Stony places, which receive the Word with Joy, but when Tribulation or Persecution ariseth, they are offended; So was it with P. P. who being thus overcome, soon turns like the Dog to his own vomit, that is licks up again those erroneous Principles which so lately he had disgorged; and like the Sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire, by defiling himself again with his former vain Conversation and Companions.

And now as to the Account of his Recovery out of Quakerism, as he vainly calls it, I shall only Remark some Passages briefly, which may be sufficient to satisfy every sober Reader, that he soon fell from Grace, into a state of total Darkness; as by his own account appears, in the following Words: ‘The residue of that [Page]Week, (says he) I walked in Darkness and deep Distress; for as I was without Light, so I was without Comfort.’

Here it is very observable, that as God had comforted and supported him in the time of his Suffering, while he continued instant in Prayer and faithfulness to God; so upon his forsaking God, and embracing the things of this World, God leaves him in darkness and deep distress. This is no other than the Scriptures abundantly shew us, 2 Tim. 2.12. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.

In page 23d. he tells us, ‘that at the end of three Weeks, he made a Publick Recantation, which the Church accepting, received him into their Charity.’

And here I cannot but take notice, That immediately upon his Apostacy, and returning back into the spirit of the World, he is again received into the favour of those Ishmaelitish Persecutors, who as he tells us in page 13th. a few days before this were Cursing him in the Streets, and wishing him dead: and by mockings & other abuses ministred such Provocations to him, that one would think nothing but a Stock or Stone would have been silent under.

And in page 15th. he gives us an account, how that the first Night in which he fell into the hands of those cruel Persecutors, they were like to have Murthered him in the Prison, had not J. R. and his Company prevented, &c.

In page 24th. he tells us, ‘That still after all there remained heavy upon him the guilt of [Page]Sin and great Darkness, and uncertainty about his spiritual Estate. I trembled (says he) at the thoughts of those miserable Jews who perished in the Wilderness, through the just Wrath of God, after their deliverance out of Egypt, and never saw the good Land.’

Also in the same page he adds as follows.

‘In my darkness I applied to my self almost in dispair, what God said to Pharaoh, Exod. 9.16. For this Cause have I raised thee up, that I might shew my wonders in thee.’

Page 25th. (says he) ‘These deep discouragements were also accompanied with the Blackest Temptations; through the force whereof I was ready to Envy the Salvation of others. This startled me as what carryed in it the express Image of Satan.’

In page 30th. he adds, ‘That for divers years after, he was frequently assaulted with Temptations to call all in question over again, to consider whether I had not apostatized from Christ and his Truth, which has been no small annoyance, and the cause of a great deal of trouble to me, (says he.)’

And thus having briefly gone through the account which he gives us of his recovery out of Quakerism, I shall not trouble the Reader with any Exposition upon it; judging it so plain of it self, that every Christian Reader will be at no loss to see that what he calls his being led into Quakerism, was a gracious Call and Invitation of God to his Soul, and had he remained faithful to God, and not fainted under his Persecutions, he might have been a happy Man. And also what [Page]he calls his recovery from Quakerism, may as plainly be seen to be his Apostacy. And by the great darkness and horror that attended him immediately upon his Apostacy, I understand it to be the same that attended Cain, Saul, Judas, Francis Spira, &c. and is largely threatned against Apostates in the 10th. of the Hebrews, 26, 27. verses. For if we Sin wilfully after that we have received the Knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more Sacrifice for Sins, but a certain fearful looking for of Judgment, and fiery Indignation, which shall devour the Adversaries.

I shall add one Instance more for the better satisfaction of the Reader, that what he calls his recovery from Quakerism, was his Apostacy; & that is his sending to the General Assembly at Newhaven, to inform them, that he had found out the wonderful Art of Longitude, which had been hid from Mankind since the World began: desiring the Assembly to fit and furnish him for a Voyage to England, that he might discover the fame to the Crown, from whom he expected a vast Reward. But the Assembly not being taken with his Notion, and he soon finding himself deceived, betook himself to Pleading Cases in the Common Law for a living which Calling he follows to this day.

Now according to Christ's Doctrine, Mat. 6.21. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, it is evident that P. P's. Heart and Meditations were now set upon Earthly and Carnal Things, and were not in that spiritual Frame as when he forsook his Wife, and all Worldly Enjoyments that he might please God, and gain a treasure in Heaven.

[Page] Also the Spirit that he was led by in the time of his Sufferings, caused the World to persecute, mock and revile him; but the Spirit that enters into him immediately upon his Apostacy, unites him to the World again.

Also this Spirit which re-enters into him upon his Apostacy, could not be of God, because it was a false Spirit, as appears by its deceiving him in the matter of Longitude, &c.

And so leaving what is abovesaid to the Consideration of the Reader, I shall proceed to his next Article, which is several Songs composed in Verse, in which he pretends to praise God for his Recovery out of the Errors of Quakerism.

This is no other than Apostates and Hypocrites were ever wont to do, I mean, hypocritically to imitate God's People in their Songs and Praises to God; as may be seen Amos 6.5. That Chant to the sound of the Viol, and invent to themselves Instruments of Musick like David, &c.

Now some of the Sins which those Hypocrites were charged with, who were thus imitating David in his Praises to God, may be seen in the 5th. Chap. of this Prophesie of Amos, at the 12th. Verse. For I know your manifold Transgressions, and your mighty Sins: they afflict the just, they take a Bribe, & they turn aside the Poor in the gate from their Right. And in the 23d. verse saith the Lord, Take thou away from me the noises of thy Songs, for I will not hear the Melody of thy Viols; but let Judgment run down as Waters, and Righteousness as a mighty Stream. From which Scripture we may observe, that those apostatized Hypocrites whose Songs the Lord thus abhorred, were such as by [Page]taking Bribes procured unrighteous Judgments, whereby the Poor were turned aside from their Right.

And now as to his Songs and other Verses, I shall be very brief, only mentioning some of the gross Blasphemies which they contain, not doubting but all sober Christians, together with my self, will abhor such Prophaness as may be seen in Page 36th. and is as follows.

That Sacramental Bond

by which my Soul was ty'd

To Christ in Baptism, I cast off,

and basely Vilifi'd.

I suffer'd to be wash'd

(as Satan instituted)

My Body, so my Soul thereby,

became the more polluted.

Now I suppose he intends by that Sacramental Bond, by which he says his Soul was ty'd to Christ, that non-scriptural Practice of sprinkling a little Water out of a Bason on his Face, in his unregenerate state. Now the Scriptures abundantly shew us, that the Spirit of God is the Bond by which God's Children are sealed or united to him; as Eph. 1.13. In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of Promise. Eph. 4.3. Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. Verse 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption. 1 Joh. 3.24. Hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given us.

[Page] Thus it plainly appears, that it is the Spirit of God which is the Bond by which God's Children are united to Christ, and not by sprinkling a little elementary Water on their Face, as P. P. has ignorantly and blasphemously asserted.

2dly. Whereas he says, ‘He suffered his Body to be washed as Satan instituted:’ I suppose he intends his being Baptised according to the Rule of Scripture, of which he gives us an Account in page 18. how that he was stirred up to submit to this Ordinance from those Words, Acts 22.16. And now why tarriest thou? arise and be Baptised and Wash away thy Sins. And that accordingly he was Baptised by burying his Body in the Water.

This is according to the Rule given us in Scripture, relating to the Administration of this Ordinance of Baptism, as may be seen Rom. 6.4. Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism. Col. 2.12. Buried with him in Baptism.

And because this Ordinance could not be truly Administred without a sufficiency of Water to bury the Person in, we read John 3.23. That John was Baptising in Enon near Salim, because there was much Water there.

2dly. As to the first Institutor of this Ordinance, we know that John the Baptist was the first practiser of it; therefore let us take his Testimony as to the Institutor of it, which is to be seen Joh. 1.33. And I knew him not, but he that sent me to Baptise with Water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit, &c.

And here I suppose none but P. P. will dare to deny that it was God Almighty that instituted [Page]this Ordinance, and sent John the Baptist to administer it.

Joh. 3.22. After these things came Jesus and his Disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and baptised. Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them, &c. By all which Scriptures it is evident, that it was the Lord Jesus Christ that instituted Baptism, and not Satan, as P. P. has blasphemously asserted.

And now I shall proceed to his second Chap. wherein he pretends to give an account of the principal Heads of Quakerism. As to this Chap. I shall not give any particular Answer, and that for these following Reasons.

First. Because J. R. in his life-time did largely publish his Principles in Print, and therefore I shall refer the Reader to his Books; which will sufficiently discover the abuses done him by P. P. now after his Death. And if there be any Persons that have not seen his Books, and are desirous to be satisfied in this matter, I have sufficient by me to supply them.

A second Reason is, Because his account is so confused, self-contradictory and false, that it deserves no Answer. And for the proof of this, take these following Instances.

In page 48. he tells the Reader as follows: ‘But Rogers held three Ordinances of Religious use, viz. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and imposition of Hands. Of Worship in general.’

All Worship is in the Heart only, and there are no external Forms in which, &c. (Rogers.)

Here the Reader may observe, that first he owns that Rogers held three external Ordinances, [Page] viz. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and imposition of Hands; and in the very next Words forgets himself and tells the Reader, that Rogers held all Worship to be in the Heart only, and that there was no external Forms. See how plainly he contradicts himself.

Page 46. he says as follows, Of Sanctification, Mortification and Perfection. First, Sanctification is a perfect cleansing from Sin.

Reply. If P. P. will dare to say, that a Person which is perfectly cleansed from Sin, is not in a state of Sanctification, I think the World will condemn his Darkness; and if he owns it, why then doth he charge it as an Error upon J. R.?

2dly. Says he, The place of it is before Justification. Here he charges J. R. with an Error, for holding that the place of Sanctification is before Justification.

To which I answer, If God should justify a Sinner before he Sanctifies him, then surely he must justify him while he remains under the guilt of his Sins, which is both contrary to the pure and holy nature of God, and to the holy Scriptures, as may be seen Exod. 34.7. Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving Iniquity Transgression and Sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty. Exod. 23.7. Keep thee far from a false matter, and the Innocent and Righteous slay thou not, for I will not Justify the wicked.

By which Scriptures it is evident that the place of Sanctification is before Juftification, (otherwise God must justify the wicked.)

Page 49. Speaking of Gospel Ministers, at the third Particular, says he, They must labour [Page]with their hands, for the support of themselves and others.

Reply. Here I think he does J. R. great unjustice, by charging him with this Error, which if it be an Error, he ought to have charged it on the Apostle Paul, who was the Person that gave the command to Gospel Ministers, as may be seen Acts 20. At the 17th verse we have an account, that from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church. And verse 33, 34. he sets before these Elders or Gospel Ministers, his own Example, in these words, I have coveted no Man's Silver, or Gold, or Apparel: ye your selves know that these Hands have ministred to my necessitics, and to them that were with me.

And in the 35th verse he orders them to do the like, minding them of the words of the Lord Jesus, as follows.

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more Blessed to give than to receive.

By which Scripture it is plain that it was Paul that gave this order to the Gospel Ministers, and ought not to be charged as an Error upon J. R.

Page 51st. he tells us, ‘That J. R. held downright, that Man had no Soul at all, and that tho' he used the Term, yet intended by it either the natural Life, or else the natural Faculties which he attributed to the Body, and held that they died with it, even as it is with a Dog, &c.’

Reply, In answer to this notorious Falshood charged upon J. R.

[Page] I shall boldly appeal to all Mankind who had Conversation with him in his life-time, for that they well know it to be utterly false: And for the Satisfaction of such as had not acquaintance with him, I shall refer them to his Books, and particularly in this Point to his Exposition on the Revelations, beginning at page 232. where he largely sets forth the Resurrection of the Body, both of the Just and unjust, and of the Eternal Judgment which God shall then pass upon all both small and great, &c.

All which sufficiently proves P. P. guilty of Slandering and Belying a dead Man, a Crime generally abhorred by all sober People, and so I shall pass to his 3d. Chap. Judging that by these few Remarks which have been taken, the Reader may plainly see, that the account he pretends to give of J. R.'s Principles is so false and self-contradictory, that it deserves no Answer at all; and that it was great folly in P. P. so to expose himself, as to pretend to give an Account of J. R.'s Principles in such a false manner, since J. R. himself has largely published his own Principles in print; which Books are plenty, and will fully satisfy every one that desires Satisfaction in that matter, of what I have here asserted.

And now we are come to his third Chap, which begins as follows.

Chap. 3. Giving an account of the unreasonableness of J. R.'s boasting of his Sufferings: And offering some Advice to such as hold his Principles of Religion.

[Page]

I purpose (says he) in this last Chapter, to make a few Remarks upon some of J. R.'s Sufferings, and the Causes of them; to the end it may be known, that his Sufferings were not Persecutions, nor for his Religion and Conscience, as he vainly and falsly boasted, and as some 'tis like have believed.

But that really he was himself a Persecutor, and that his Sufferings were the demerits of his horrid Immoralities and Impieties.

The first thing that he mentioned on the account of his Sufferings, was the divorcing his Wife from him. To which I answer, that the cause of it was his Adultery, Beastiality, &c. in which he had lived for divers years, as he boasted, and endeavoured partly to Justify.

If any in his behalf object, that the proof was insufficient, I answer, that neither they nor I are competent to judge of that. And farther, that upon his Tryal, he never denied a tittle of the Charge, and out of Court always owned it, and particularly to Mr. Edwards, who was his Council, but thereupon deserted him, and gave an Evidence against him.

And for the Proof of this, I refer the Reader to the Records and Files in the Secretary's Office at Hartford.

Reply, As to this first charge of P. P. against J. R. I shall first affirm & then prove, that every Article of it is positively false.

But before I come to my Proof, I shall give the Reader a true account concerning the matter of the first difference between J. R. and his Wife, as I received it from their own Mouths, [Page]they never differing in any material Point as to the account they gave about it.

But I must confess, that it is a hard task for me to give a true Relation of this matter; for that it will so much expose the Adulterous Life which my dear Mother was drawn into by those wicked Persons, who were the cause of that Divorce.

And although I did faithfully and in the fear of God labour with her in her life-time, by perswading her to forsake her Adulterous Life and unlawful Companions, yet since her death, should have been glad to have heard no more about it, had not P. P. like a bad Bird befowled his own Nest, by raking in the Graves of the dead, and by publishing such notorious Lies against them, whom the Clods of the Valley forbid to answer for themselves: For which cause I am compelled to give a true account concerning those things, which are as follow.

John Rogers and his Wife were both brought up in the New-England way of Worship, never being acquainted with any other Sect; and although they were zealous of the Form which they had been brought up in, yet were wholly ignorant as to the work of Regeneration, until by a fore Affliction which J. R. met with, it pleased God to lay before his Consideration the vanity of all Earthly things, and the necessity of making his Peace with God, and getting an Interest in Jesus Christ, which he now applies himself to seek for, by earnest Prayer to God in secret, and according to Christ's words, Mat. 7.7, 8. Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall [Page]find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, &c.

And he coming to witness the truth of these Scriptures, by Gods giving him a new heart and another Spirit, and by remitting the guilt of his Sins, did greatly engage him to love God with all his heart, and his Neighbour as himself, as did appear by his warning all People he met with to make their Peace with God, declaring what God had done for his Soul, &c.

And now his Wife observing the great Change which was wrought in her Husband, as appeared by his fervent Prayers, continual searching the Scriptures, and daily discoursing about the things of God to all Persons he met with, and particularly to her, perswading her to forsake her vain Conversation and make her peace with God, did greatly stir her up to seek to God by earnest Prayer, that he would work the same work of Grace in her Soul, as she saw and Believed to be wrought in her Husband. And after some time it pleased God, graciously to answer her Prayers, by sending the Spirit of his Son into her Heart, whereby she was able to cry, Abba Father. The Spirit of God it self bearing witness with her Spirit, that she was a Child of God; according to what is written, Rom. 8.15, 16.

And now her Husband and her self, came to be united together in a double Bond of love; for before this there was only the love that is between a Man and his Wife, but now there was the love of the Brotherhood, even that love by [Page]which God's Children are united together. And in this unity they lived together several Months, witnessing both to small and great what God had done for their Souls.

But after some time, upon their diligent searching the holy Scriptures, they began to doubt of some of the Principles which they had traditionally been brought up in; and particularly that of sprinkling Infants, which they had been taught to call Baptism; but now they find it to be only an invention of Men, and neither Command or Example in Scripture for it: Upon which they bore a publick Testimony against it, which soon caused a great uprore in the Country. And their Relations, together with their Neighbours, and indeed the World in general who had any opportunity, were all united in perswading them that it was a Spirit of Error, by which they were deluded: But the main Instrument which Satan at length made use of to deceive J. R.'s Wife, was her own natural Mother, who by giving her Daughter an account of her own Conversion, as she called it, and telling her Daughter there was no such great Change in the Work of Conversion, as they had met with; but that it was the Devil had transformed himself as an Angel of Light, &c. And at length fully perswaded her Daughter to believe that it was even so. Whereupon she soon publickly recanted, and renounced that Spirit which she had been led by, and declared it to be the Spirit of the Devil; and then vehemently perswaded her Husband to do the like; telling him with bitter Tears, that unless he [Page]would renounce that Spirit, she dare not live with him, &c.

But he constantly telling her that he knew it to be the Spirit of God, and that to deny it would be to deny God, which he dare not do, &c.

Whereupon she left her Husband, taking her two Children with her, and with the help of her Relations went to her Fathers House, about eighteen miles distant from her Husband's Habitation. And I do solemnly declare in the presence of God, that this is a true Relation of their first separation, as I received it from their own Mouths; as also by the Testimony of Daniel Stubbins and Mary Tubs, two of their next Neighbours, is fully proved, whose Testimonies are in the foregoing part of this Book.

And so having left her Husband upon the account of his Religion, as has been declared, and Renouncing her Profession, she soon returned into her vain Conversation, and let in a flood of Malice against her Husbaud. For as Marriage is an Ordinance of God, and is often made use of in Scripture to set forth the union that is between Christ and his Church; so on the contrary, where Satan has ever made a breach in that Relation, it is commonly followed with a greater degree of Enmity than is common in other cases. For soon after she had left her Husband, she declared, that he had given her an account of his former Course of Life in his unconverted state, how he had been the worst of Sinners, and guilty of many gross acts of uncleanness, which she said he had particularised [Page]to her, and which she now makes a Catalogue of, and presents to the Authority by way of complaint against her Husband; whereupon her Husband was seized by an Officer, and committed to Hartford Goal, for a Tryal at the next Court of Assistants, where she appeared and tendered her Oath to confirm the truth of what she had charged him with.

But the Court observing what an imbittered spirit she was in against her Husband, refused to give her her Oath to any one Article of her Complaints; yet her Complaints were committed to the Grand Jury, with all the Aggravations which several Attorney's who were employed for her could invent; But the Grand Jury judging the Charges of a prejudiced Woman against her Husband to be of no weight, soon returned Ignoramus, and that they found not the Bill against him. Whereupon the Court granted him Goal delivery, and so he was never brought to any Tryal. And for the proof of this, take the following Copy of Record.

§

At a Court of Assistants held at Hartford, May 25. 1675.

The Grand Jury having committed to their consideration the Case of John Rogers, who is now in Prison for heinous Crimes objected against him, do return, That they find not the Bill. Upon the return of the Grand Jury, this Court doth grant John Rogers Goal delivery, he paying the Goaler his just Fees, and such necessary Charges as have been expended upon the handing of him to Prison by the Marshal of New-London, and his attendance.

[Page]

A true Copy of Record,

Examin'd per. Hez. Willys, Secretary.

Thus it appears by this Record, that upon the Grand Jury acquitting him, he was set at liberty by the Court, and so never brought to any Tryal about those Charges alledged against him by his Wife; yet she never returned to him any more, but continued to dwell with her Father about a year and half after this, and then the General Court gave her this following Bill of Divorce, wherein they give no Reason why they did it.

§

At a General Assembly holden at Hartford, October 12th. 1676.

This Court having considered the Petition of Elizabeth Rogers, the Wife of John Rogers, for a Release from her Conjugal Bond to her Husband, with all the Allegations and Proofs presented [...] clear the Righteousness of her desires, do find just Cause to grant her desires, and do free her from her Conjugal Bond to the said John Rogers.

A true Copy, Test. Eleazer Kimberly, Secretary.

Thu [...] it appears, that this Court above-mentioned, granted John Rogers's Wife a Bill of Divorce, without giving any reason why they did it, which I suppose to be a Precedent not to be Paralleled in the Kingdom of England.

And now having given a true and impartial Account of the first cause of John Rogers's Wife leaving her Husband, and also the other proceedings [Page]that were in that matter, so far as to the Bill of Divorce.

In the next place I shall make Reply to the several notorious Falshoods asserted by P. P. concerning this matter.

The first thing that I shall observe is, that he positively asserts, that the cause of the divorcing his Wife from him, was his Adultery, Beastiality, &c. in which he had lived for divers years, as he Boasted, and endeavoured partly to justify, &c.

Here I think I may boldly conclude that he has reference to these charges laid against J. R. by his Wife; and the reason why I may well conclude he means so, is because I never heard or understood that ever he was charged with any Misdemeanour in his life before that time.

And for P. P. boldly to affirm, that the cause of the Divorce was for his Adultery and Beastiality, when the Divorce it self nor any other Record alledges any such thing to be the Reason; and also the Record of that matter proves that he was acquitted by the Grand Jury, and dismist by the Court, without so much as being brought to a Tryal. All which proves P. P's. charge to be abominably false.

In the next place he adds as follows.

If any in his behalf object, That the proof was insufficient, I answer, that neither they nor I are competent to judge of that.

Here he confesses that he is not competent to judge whether the proof was sufficient or not.

To which I answer, That the Jury who had the hearing of it, were competent to judge of [Page]it, and accordingly did, and have left their Judgment upon Record, which is the only Rule for all other Persons to judge by.

But then how abominable is it for P.P. who confesses himself not capable to judge of it, yet has presumed to judge and condemn a dead Man, in a matter wherein the Court had justified him fifty Years past, and I suppose near ten Years before P. P. was born: And farther, (says he, speaking of J. R.) that upon his Tryal, he never denied a tittle of the Charge.

Reply, This is another positive Falshood, in that J. R. was never brought upon any Tryal about the matter, as has been sufficiently proved already, yet I confess that upon his Examination he did not deny any one tittle of his Wife's charges, which is no token of a guilty Person. He taking his Example from the innocent Lamb of God, who upon his Examination did the like, as may be seen, Mat. 27.13, 14. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word, in so much that the Governour marvelled greatly.

Thus we see that it was the Example of Christ to do the like, & it is well known throughout the World, that guilty Persons are never wanting in denying the Crime they were charged with. Besides this J. R. saw that the Court refused to give his Wife her Oath to her charges against him, and therefore it was no Witness in Law, and altogether needless for him to deny it, so long as no Witness was taken against him.

[Page] He also asserts that J. R. always owned the charge out of Court, and in particular to Mr. Edwards, who was his Counsel, but thereupon deserted him, and gave an Evidence against him.

Before I make any particular Answer to these last Assertions, I shall give an account concerning this Edwards which he mentions: And first, I suppose P. P. by not mentioning his Christian Name, would have the Reader believe him to be Richard Edwards, late of Hartford, deceased, who was a sober Man, given to no Vice, as I know of.

But this Edwards which tendered an Evidence against J. R. was one William Edwards, a Man notoriously given to Drink, as is well known to all the ancient Dwellers at Hartford. This Man was never employed by J. R. to be his Counsel; yet he informed the Court, that J. R's. Friends desired him to speak in his behalf; whereupon the Court admitted him. But J. R. not rewarding him as he expected he would, he drew up an Evidence against him, wherein he declared, that J. R. had confessed to him a gross act of Uncleanness: But J. R. affirming his Evidence to be salse, and desiring the Court to interrogate him as to the Time and Place, which accordingly they did; and he said it was at Hartford, naming the day of the Month; and the Judges of the Court well knowing that J. R. was at the same time at New-London, which is fifty Miles distant from Hartford, did sharply check him and command him out of the Court, which I think was a moderate Punishment for such a Crime. And this I am told by them that [Page]were present and saw it; yet for my own satisfaction I went to Hartford on purpose to see it, and according did see it among the Complaints of J. R's. Wife, his Oath not being given to it: Which evidenced the truth of what I had heard about it.

And now as to P. P's. asserting that J. R. always owned the Charge out of Court, and particularly to Mr. Edwards.

This I charge to be a Falshood, and for the proof of it, I shall refer to the Judgment of all who know the Duty of Grand Jurors, and the Custom of Courts, who well understand, that if there had been but one Evidence given under Oath to the Grand Jury, that they had heard J. R. own out of Court, that he was guilty of any such Fact as P. P. alledges, they could not by their Oaths have acquitted him, (as they did) but must have return'd Billevera, and he must have been brought to a Tryal: Which is an evident proof that this is another Fashood.

Last of all, he refers the Reader for proof to the Files and Records in the Secretary's Office in Hartford.

Reply, This is an unreasonable Imposition upon the Readers, in putting them upon a Journey to Hartford, there to search the Records for fifty Years standing, or they must remain as ignorant as they were before they saw his Book.

Yet I must confess it is the wisest Speech in his Book, since none will take the pains to do it; and so he hopes to conceal his Lies to the World's end.

[Page] And now I cannot but take notice of P. P.'s great Folly, in proving his own Illegitimacy to the World, in asserting, that the Divorce was on the account of his Beastiality; which if J. R. had been guilty of, every Child that can read the Scripture, knows he ought to have been put to Death by the Law of God, whereby his Wife would have been lawfully divorced from him, and might have been married to another Man, and not have been called an Adulteress; according to what is written, Rom. 7.2, 3. For the Woman which hath an Husband, is bound by the law to her Husband so long as he liveth: but if the Hushand be dead, she is loosed from the law of her Hushand. So then if while her Husband liveth, she be married to another Man, she shall be called an Adulteress, &c.

Thus P. P. has been left to act as sometimes it hath happened to Thieves, who in the time of their Theft, have been so much concerned to watch where they expect most Danger, and thereby neglecting to look round them, have been surprised and taken at unawares: So P. P. by watching all Opportunities to mischief the dead Man, which he is fighting with, has neglected to look round him, and thereby has proved himself a Bastard.

And now having fairly proved P. P's. charges against J. R. to be positively false in every Article, I shall observe to the Reader, how plain it appears that P. P's. end in publishing those Scandals against J. R. was only to expose his Person, and not his Religion, since those charges laid against him by his Wife, had only reference [Page]to the time in which he was a Member in the Presbyterian or Independent Church in New-London, and therefore could be no blemish to the Profession which he lived and dyed in after his separation from that Church; by which it is evident, that his Malice is only against the dead Man's Person.

In the next place I shall proceed to give the Reader an Account of the woful event that followed upon granting of this unlawful Divorce, which was first her Marrying P. P. the reputed Father of the present P. P. with whom I am now concerned: And after some time, having a Child by the said Pratt, she was remarkably smitten by the Hand of God, and the Child taken away by Death, as was David's Child by Uriah's Wife, and she continued to be a monument of Distress for many Months, not being able to help or raise her self off the Bed on which she lay. In which time of her Distress, she also fell into sore horror and trouble of Conscience on account of her Marrying P. P. after which time I never heard her justify her self concerning that matter, otherwise than saying, the Authority was guilty of it, &c. And although these things were the publick discourse of the Country in the time of it, yet because I would not fill this Volume with more Evidences than needs must, I shall prove my assertion out of the Town-Records of several Towns where she Recorded her self the Daughter of Matthew Griswould, after she was Married to P. P. which is an evident Proof that she did not esteem her Marriage to be Lawful. [Page]And here follows said Copies.

§

The Deed of Gift of Elizabeth Daughter of Matthew Griswould, late of Lyme, deceased, to her Son John Rogers of New-London, in which she conveys to him all the Upland and Meadow that was given to her by her Father in Saybrook, bears date the nineteenth of the fifth Month, in the year of our Lord 1707. and was acknowledged by her the said Elizabeth before Thomas Bolles Justice of the Peace, as appears by the Records of Saybrook, Lib. 2. Folio 337.

Test. Samuel Willard, T. Clerk.

§

The Acquittance from Elizabeth the Daughter of Matthew Griswould, to John Rogers, of all her right in Mamacock, bears date the thirteenth of the tenth Month, and was Recorded the 15th. day of December, 1687. Per Daniel Wetherell Recorder. A true Copy of Record of the aforesaid Date.

Test. Edward Hallam, Recorder.

And for the proof that she thus Recorded her Name after she was married to P. P. take this follow Certificate under another Clerk's Hand. Peter Pratt was Married unto Elizabeth Griswould, that was Divorc'd from John Rogers; They were Married the 5th. of August 1679. P. P. deceased the 24th. of March, 1688. A true Copy out of the first Book of Records in Lyme, Folio 63. By Moses Noyes, Town Clerk,

Thus it appears, that after she was Married to P. P. she Recorded her self the Daughter of [Page] Matthew Griswould in two several Towns, which is a manifest Proof that she did not esteem the Marriage to be Lawful.

In the next place I shall give an account of the great Horror and Distress which P. P. fell into before his Death, on account of his Marrying J. Rogers's Wife, as he publickly declared to the Neighbourhood, many of which are yet living; and for the satisfaction of the Reader, I have taken the Testimony of two of his next Neighbours, which are as follows.

§

The Testimony of Moses Huntly, aged sixty odd years, testifieth, That I was a near Neighbour to Peter Pratt, formerly of Lyme, deceased, in the time that he lived as a Husband with Elizabeth the Daughter of Matthew Griswould, who had been divorced from John Rogers of New-London; and after the said Pratt had recovered of a great sit of Sickness, I heard him several times sorely lament his marrying her; and said she was John Rogers's Wife, and that it was unlawful in the sight of God, for him to be concerned with her; with more to that effect.

Moses Huntly.

Dated in Lime, Septemb. 15th. 1725.

§

The Testimony of Christian Menter, aged about fifty four Years, testifieth, That I have often heard Peter Pratt, formerly of Lyme, deceased, lament his marrying the Woman that had been divorced from John Rogers of New-London; saying, she was John Rogers's Wife, and that he was guilty of Adultery in being concerned with her; with much more to that effect.

[Page]

Dated in Colechester, Septem. 18th. 1725.

Christian Menter.

Thus it appears, both by Records and living Testimonies, what was some part of the woful effect of that wicked Divorce.

And now having briefly given an account concerning the first Difference which happened between John Rogers and his Wife, with several Circumstances which happened therenpon; in all which Relation I have endeavoured to prove what I have asserted; and have not ordered the Reader a Journey to Hartford, to search for proof there, as P. P. has done.

And for as much as P. P. is well acquainted with the Laws and Customs of the English Nation, having made it his Study and Practice for many Years past, I can do no less than blame him for signing his Book by a wrong Name, (viz.) Pratt, since he well knows that it is the Custom of the English Nation for such Persons as he is, to bear up their Mothers Sir-name: And since it appears that both his Father and Mother confessed their living together to be Adultery, and his Mother in the time of it Recorded her self as is above express'd, he ought also to have signed his Book Peter Griswould.

The next Suffering which he says J. R. falsly boasted of, and which P. P. says was not for his Religion, was the taking away his Children, &c.

In answer to which he multiplies several abominable Falshoods, on purpose to deceive the Reader.

[Page] First. Insinuating as if it was done by a Law of this Colony.

2dly. As if it was to prevent his Children suffering on the account of Education and suitable subsistance.

3dly. He asserts, ‘That another Reason was, that J. R. went raging and raving to that degree, that no sober Person could have thought him to have been fit to have been a minute out of Bedlam.’

Reply. For the discovering of all those notorious Lies, take this following Copy of Record.

A general Court held at Hartford, October 11th. 1677.

§

Upon the Petition of Elizabeth Griswould, the late Wife of John Rogers, that she might have her Children continued with her, and brought up by her, and not with John Rogers, he being so Heterodox in his Opinion and Practice: The Court having considered the Petition, and John Rogers having in open Court declared, that he did utterly Renounce all the visible Worship of New-England, and professedly declare against the Christian Sabbath, as a meer invention, &c. The Court see cause that the two Children shall be and remain with her the said Elizabeth, and her Father Matthew Griswould, to be brought up and nurtured by them in the Admonition and Fear of the Lord, during the pleasure of the Court, &c.

John Allyn Secr.

[Page] Thus it appears, that the taking away J. R''s. Children, was by a special Act of Assembly, and no Reason rendered for it, but only his Religion; which plainly proves all P. P's. Insinuations and Affirmations concerning the matter to be positively false, and that J. R. lost his Children only on account of his Religion.

After some years (says he) his Son was returned to him by Authority; but his Daughter having through God's Grace, so effectually imbibed not only the Principles of true Religion, but the real beginnings and seeds of saving Grace, as since has been more evident, nothing but Force could have obliged her to abide with him, wherefore none was used.

Reply. For the discovering these two last Falshoods concerning J. R's Son and Daughter, take these following Testimonies, one of which is J. R's. Daughter, who I hope P. P. will not object against, since he confesses, she has imbibed not only the Principles of true Religion, but the real beginnings and seeds of saving Grace, upon which account her Evidence ought to be esteemed more weighty than a common Evidence.

§

The Testimony of Elizabeth Prentts, the Daughter of John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, Testifieth, that the first of my going to live with my Father, was when I was about the age of fourteen years, being sent by my Mother; and after I had continued with my Father same Months, he carried me back to Lyme to visit my Mother and other Relations, where my Grand-father Griswould forcibly [Page]stopt me, so that my Father went home without me; but it was not long after before I got an opportunity to return to him again, and continued to live with him from time to time till I was Married, which from the first of my going to him, was about four years.

And I do farther testify, That the first of my Brother's going to him, was to my Wedding, being also sent by our Mother.

Dated in New-London, Septem. 10th. 1725.

Elizabeth Prentts.

§

I the Subscriber was one of John Rogers's Family at the time when his Daughter first came to him, and I continued to live in the same House till she was Married, and I do testify to the truth of every Article that is above written, excepting that I do not remember that it was her Mother that first sent her.

September 10th. 1725.

James Smith.

Thus it appears by these two Witnesses, that what P. P. has here alledged is absolutely false, and that J. R's. Daughter did live with him from the age of fourteen years till she was Married, which was about four years. And whereas he asserts, that nothing but Force could have obliged her to abide with him, it plainly appears there was forcible means used to prevent her living with him: By which it is evident, that the Account he gives of this matter is notoriously false.

He also asserts, That after some years his Son was returned to him by Authority, which [Page]is another abominable Falshood, and is proved false by the two last Witnesses, who testify, that the first of his going, was to his Sister's Wedding, being sent by his Mother. And here I shall inform the Reader, that soon after my Mother had sent me to my Father, one of the Magistrates gave out a special Warrant, by which I was seized and brought before a County Court, in order to take me forcibly away from my Father again; but the Court not agreeing in the matter, some judging it not possible to take me from my Father, I being not less than fifteen years old, and some judging it not Justice, they passed no Judgment in the Case.

And here follows an attested Copy of the Warrant.

§

To John Rogers Junior, These are in their Majesties Name to Will and Require you forthwith upon sight hereof, to make your personal Appearance at the adjourned Special Court to be holden in New-London this Day, to answer the Complaint of your Mother Elizabeth Beckwith, for your absenting your self from her Service and Care, contrary to the Order of the General Court: Whereof you may not fail.

James Fitch, Assistant

New-London, the 26th of March, 1691.

To the County Marshal or Constable of New-London, to Serve and Return.

This is a true Copy given by me, John Plumbe, County Marshal.

Thus it appears, that the Authority was so far from returning J. R. his son again, as P. P. [Page]has falsly affirmed, that they did their endeavour to take him away again, after his Mother had sent him.

In the same Page says he,

‘For these two Reasons he has unspeakably railed upon and vilified the Authority of the Government, charging them with Adultery in the former, and Persecution in both.’

Reply. Here I must confess, that according to my Judgment, there is as much truth contained in this laft Paragraph as in any part of his Book; for if the Railing and Reviling was unspeakable, then it was never spoken by J. R. which Construction I doubt not but will be the Judgment of all Persons who had acquaintance with him in his life-time; for it is well known that he was no Railer or Reviler.

And well might he charge the Authority with his Wive's Adultery, since they were the only cause of leading her into it, by divorcing her from her lawful Husband, and giving no Reason why they did it, and then marrying her to another Man, while her Husband lived; which was the occasion that both her self and the Man that she was married to after her Divorce, so publickly confessed their living together to be Adultery, as has already been proved.

And for as much as the Authority of the Government did deprive him of his Wife, without giving any Reason why they did it; which is a sufficient proof that it was only for his Religion; and also did deprive him of his Children upon the account of his Religion, as has been proved by the Record of Court; well might he charge [Page]them with Persecution in both.

In Page 56th he goes on as follows.

‘Another Suffering that he gloried in, was his Whippings and Imprisonments; of which to speak particularly, and to shew the criminal Causes of them, would tire my self & you. Wherefore let it suffice to affirm, that great part of his Imprisonment at Hartford, was upon strong suspicion of his being accessary to the burning New-London Meeting-House.’

Reply, As to this last Charge against J. R. concerning New-London Meeting-House, were it not for the sake of those who live remote, I should make no Reply to it; because there are so many hundreds of People inhabiting about New-London, who know it to be notoriously false, and that J.R. was a close Prisoner at Hartford (which is fifty miles distant from New-London) several Months before, and three Years after said Meeting-House was burnt.

And that this long Imprisonment was for refusing to give a Bond of fifty Pounds, which he declared he could not in Conscience do, and to pay a Fine of five Pounds, which he refused to do; for which Reasons he was kept a Prisoner from the time of his first Commitment, three Years and eight Months, and then set at liberty by open Proclamation, is so fully proved by the Records of Hartford, that I presume none will dare to contradict.

And now in order to grove P. P's Affirmation to be false, in that he affirms, that great part of his Imprisonment at Hartford, was upon strong suspicion of his being accessary to the [Page]burning New-London Meeting-House, take these following Testimonies.

§

The Testimony of Thomas Hancox, aged about eighty Years, testifieth, That when I was Goal-keeper at Hartford, John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, was a Prisoner under my Charge for more than three Years; in which time of his Confinement at Hartford, New-London Meeting-House was burnt, and I never heard or understood that the Authority or any other Person had any mistrust that be was any ways concerned in that Fact, nor did be ever suffer one Hours Imprisonment on that account.

Thomas Hancox.

Kinsington, Septem. the 17th. 1725.

§

Samuel Gilbert, aged sixty two Years, testifieth and saith, That at the time when John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, was a Prisoner several Years at Hartford, I did at the same time keep a publick House of Entertainment near the Prison, and was well knowing to the Concerns of the said Rogers, all the time of his Imprisonment: And I do farther testify, that New-London Meeting-House was burnt at the time while he was a Prisoner in said Prison; but no part of his Imprisonment was upon that account.

Samuel Gilbert.

October 18th. 1725.

Thus it plainly appears, that this Affirmation concerning New-London Meeting-House, is a positive Falshood.

He still goes on as follows. ‘His Whippings there were for most audacious Contempt of Authority; his sitting on the Gallows was for [Page]blasphemous Words; and in short, he never suffered the loss of one Hair of his Head by the Authority, for any Article of his Religion, nor for the Exercise of it.’

Reply. First, he asserts, that his Whippings there, (viz.) at Hartford, were for most audacious Contempt of Authority, but doth not inform the Reader what the Contempt was; making himself the Judge as well as the Witness, whenas it was only his Business to have proved what the Contempt was, and to have left the Judgment to the Reader. And for as much as his assertion is altogether unintelligible, so may it reasonably be expected that my Answer must be by supposition, and is as follows.

I suppose he intends that Barbarous Cruelty which was acted on J. R. while he was a Prisoner at Hartford in the time of his long Imprisonment above mentioned, which was so contrary to the Laws of God and Kingdom of England, that I never could find that they made a Record of that matter, according to Christ's Words, John 3.20. For every one that doeth Evil, hateth the light, &c.

But J. R. has given a large Relation about it, as may be seen in his Book entituled, A midnight Cry from the Temple of God to the ten Virgins, from page 13. to 15. where he asserts, that he was taken out of Prison he knew not for what, and tied to the Carriage of a great Gun, where he had seventy six stripes on his naked Body, with a Whip much larger than the lines of a Drum, with knots at the ends as big as a Walnut, and in that maimed Condition returned to Prison [Page]again; and his Bed which he had hired at a dear Rate taken from him, and not so much as Straw allowed him to lie on, it being on the 18th. day of the eighth Month called October, & very cold Weather.

And although my self with a multitude of Spectators who were present at Hartford, and saw this cruel Act, can testify to the truth of the account which he gives of it, yet I cannot inform the Reader on what account it was that he suffered it, or what he was charged with; for as I said before, I never could find a Record of that matter.

But if it was for Contempt of Authority, as P. P. asserts, then I think those that inflicted such a Punishment were more guilty of Contempt against God, than J. R. was of Contempt against the Authority; for God in his holy Law has strictly commanded Judges not to exceed forty stripes on any account, as may be seen Deut. 25.3. So that for Judges to exceed forty stripes, is high Contempt against God.

In the next place he adds, that his sitting on the Gallows was for blasphemous Words.

Reply. Here again he ought to have informed the Reader what the Words were, which doubtless would have been more satisfaction to the Reader, than for P. P. to make himself both Witness and Judge, and so leave nothing for the Readers to do, but to remain as ignorant as they were before they saw his Book.

And he might as well have said of the Martyr Stephen, that his suffering was for blasphemous Words, as what he says of J. R. for it was but [Page]the judgment of J. R's. Persecutors, that the words were blasphemous, and so it was the judgment of the Martyr Stephen's Persecutors that he was guilty of speaking blasphemous words, as may be seen Acts 6.13. This Man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous Words, &c. Whereupon they put him to Death.

In the next place I shall give the Reader an account what these words were, for which J. R. was charged with Blasphemy, the account of which here follows.

He being at a House in New-London, where there were many Persons present, was giving a description of the state of an unregenerate Person, and also of the state of a sanctified Person; wherein he alledged, that the Body of an unregenerate Person was a Body of Sin, and that Satan had his Habitation there.

And on the contrary that the Body of a Sanctified Person was Christ's Body, and that Christ dwelt in such a Body. Whereupon one of the Company asked him, whether he intended the humane Body? to which he replyed, that he did intend the humane Body.

Whereupon the Person replied again, will you say that your humane Body is Christ's Body? to which he replied, (clapping his hand on his Breast) yes, I do affirm that this humane Body 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, &c.

Whereupon two of the Persons present gave their Testimony as follows: ‘We being present, &c. saw John Rogers clap his Hand on his [Page]Breast and say, This is Christ's humane Body.’ But they omitted the other Words which J. R. joyned with it. And because I was very desirous to have given those Testimonies out of the Secretary's Office, I took a Journey to Hartford on purpose, but the Secretary could not find them: yet for as much as my self was present both when the Words were spoken, and also at the Tryal at Hartford, I am very confident that I have given them verbatim. And whether or no this was Blasphemy, I desire not to be the Judge, but am willing to leave the judgment to every unprejudiced and sober Reader; and shall proceed to his next assertion which is as follows. ‘And in short, (says he) he never suffered the loss of one hair of his Head by the Authority for any Article of his Religion, nor for the Exercise of it, &c.’

Reply. In answer to this last extravagant Assertion, which the whole Neighbourhood knows to be false, I shall only mention the Causes of some few of his sufferings, which I am sure that both the Records and Neighbourhood will witness the truth of.

In the first place he lost his Wife and Children on the account of his Religion, as has already been fully proved.

The next long Persecution which both himself and all his Society suffered for many years, was for refusing to come to the Presbyterian Meeting; upon which account their Estates were extreamly destroyed, and their Bodies often imprisoned.

[Page]

Also the multitude of Fines and Imprisonments which he suffered on the account of Baptising such as desired to be Baptised after the Example of Christ, by burying in the Water. All which Fines and Imprisonments were executed in the most Rigorous manner. Sometimes the Officer taking him in the dead of Winter, as he came wet out of the Water, committed him to Prison without a spark of Fire, with many other cruel acts which for brevity I must omit.

Moreover, the many hundreds of Pounds which the Collectors have taken from him for the maintainance of the Presbyterian Ministers, which suffering he endured to the day of his Death, and which his Society still suffers.

But for as much as his sufferings continued more than forty Years, and were so numerous, that I doubt not but to give a particular account of them, would fill a larger volume than was ever Printed in New-England, I must desist, and shall only mention the last suffering which he met with from the Authority on account of his Religion, and was but a little time before his Death, and is as follows. J. R. and divers of his Society having as good a Right to New-London Meeting house as any of the Inhabitants of the Town, it being built by a publick Rate, every one paying their Proportion according to their Estate, did propose to hold his Meetings there at Noon-time, between the Presbyterian Meetings, so as not to disturb them in either of their Meetings; and accordingly we came to the Meeting-house, and finding their Meeting was not finished, we stood without the door till they [Page]had ended and were come out, and then J. R. told the People that our coming was to hold our Meeting between their Meetings, and that we had no design to make any disturbance, but would break up our Meeting as soon as they were ready for their After-noon Meeting. Whereupon several of the Neighbours manifested their freedom in the matter; yet the Constable came in the time of our Meeting, with an Order to break up our Meeting, and accordingly with his attendance violently laid hands on several of us, hauling Men and Women out of the Meeting like as Saul did in his unconverted state, as may be seen Acts 3.3. And for no other Crime than what I have here truly related, J. R. was had to Court, and charged with a Riot, tho' all that he did was to expound a Chapter in the Bible, and all that his People did was to sit still and attend to his Exposition, till the Constable with his Attendance made the Disturbance, as aforesaid.

So that if my self had been the Judge, as I was not, I should have thought the Constable to have been guilty of the Riot, and not J. R. However J. R. was fined ten Shillings, for which the Officer first took ten Sheep, and then complained that they were not sufficient to answer the Fine and Charges, whereupon he came a second time and took a milch Cow out of the Pasture on the same account, and so we heard no more about it, by which I suppose that the Cow and ten Sheep satisfied the Fine and Charges.

[Page] And I mention this Article of his sufferings, because it was the last Fine that was laid on him, for he soon after dyed.

But the same Spirit of Persecution under which he suffered, is yet living among us; as is evident by what here follows. The last 5th. Month called July, in the year 1725. We were going to our Meeting, being eight of us in number, it being the first day of the Week, the day which we usually meet on, as well as the rest of our Neighbours; and as we were in our way, we were taken up on the King's High-way, by order of Joseph Backus, called a Justice of the Peace, and the next day, by his order, cruelly whipt with an unmerciful Instrument, by which our Bodies were exceedingly wounded and maimed; and the next first day following, as we were returning home from our Meeting, we were again three of us taken up on the King's High-way, by order of John Woodward and Ebenezer West of Lebanon, called Justices of the Peace, and the next day by them sentenced to be whipt, and were accordingly carried to the place of Execution, and stript in order to receive the Sentence; but there happening to be present some tender spirited People, who seeing the Wounds in our Bodies which we had received the Week before, paid the Fine, and so prevented the Punishment. Also the same John Woodward soon after this, committed two of our Brethren to Prison, (viz) Richard Man and Elisha Man, for not attending the Presbyterian Meeting, although they declared it to be contrary to their Consciences so to do. Neither have their [Page]Persecutors allowed them one meal of Victua's, nor so much as Straw to lie on, all the time of their Imprisonment, altho' they are well known to be very poor Men.

But to return to the Matter I was upon, which was to prove P. P'.s Assertion false, in saying J. R. never suffered the loss of one Hair of his Head by the Authority, for any Article of his Religion, nor for the Exercise of it: Whenas all these Sufferings which I have mentioned, were for Articles of his Religion, and for the Exercise of it. And had not P. P. been bereft as well of Common Reason as Conscience, he would not have presumed to have asserted such a thing, which the generality of the Neighbourhood knows to be false.

In the next place I shall proceed to his 58th Page, where in his Ishmaelitish Language he pretends to give a Relation concerning J. R'.s second Marriage: But before I trace him in his Mocks and Scoffs, I shall give the Reader a true and impartial Account of that matter, which is as follows.

After J. R's. first Wife had lest him on account of his Religion, as has already been proved, he remained single for more than twenty five years, in hopes that she would come to Repentance, and forsake her unlawful Companions. But seeing no Change in her, he began to think of Marrying another Woman, and accordingly did agree upon Marriage with a Maid belonging to New-London, whose name was Mary Ransford. And for as much as he could not in Conscience conform to the Customary [Page]Form of Marriage practiced in Connecticut Colony, having publickly opposed them, and openly in Court declared that he did utterly renounce all the visible Worship of New-England, for more than twenty years before, upon which account he had lost his Children, as has already been proved; and there being no Person in the Government that would Marry them in any other Form, they thereupon agreed to go into the County Court, and there declare their Marriage: and accordingly they did so; he leading his Bride by the Hand into Court, where the Judges were sitting, and a multitude of Spectators present, and then desired the whole Assembly to take notice, that he took that Woman to be his Wife; his Bride also assenting to what he said. Whereupon the Judge offered to Marry them in their Form, which J. R. refused, telling him that he had once been Married by their Authority, and by their Authority they had taken away his Wife again, and rendered him no Reason why they did it. Upon which account he looked at their Form of Marriage to be of no value, and therefore would be Married by their Form no more, &c. And from the Court he went to the Governour's House, with his Bride, and declared their Marriage to the Governour, who seemed to like it well enough, and wished them much Joy, which is a usual Compliment.

And thus having given a true and impartial Relation of the manner of his Marriage to his second Wife, which I doubt not but every unprejudiced Person will judge as authentick as any Marriage that was ever made in Connecticut Colony.

[Page] In the next place I shall proceed to inform the Reader in what manner he came to be deprived of this his second Wife, for after they had lived together about three years, and had had two Children, the Court had up J. R's. Wife, & [...]arged her with Fornication, for having her last Child, pretending no other Reason, than that the Marriage was not Lawful; and thereupon called her Mary Ransford, after her maiden Name.

And then vehemently urged her to give her Oath who was the Father of her Child, which they charged to be by Fornication, her Husband standing by her in the Court with the Child in his Arms, strictly commanded her not to take the Oath, for these three following Reasons. First, because it was contrary to Christ's Command, Mat. 5.34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all, &c.

A second Reason was, because it was a vain Oath, in as much as they had been Married so publickly, and then lived together three years after, and that he himself did not deny his Child, nor did any Person doubt who was the Father of the Child, &c.

A third Reason was, he told her they laid a snare for her, and wanted her Oath to prove their Charge, which was, that the Child was by Fornication; so that her Swearing would be that he was the Father of that Child by Fornication, and so it would not only be a Reproach to him and the Child, but also a false Oath, for as much as the Child was not by Fornication.

[Page] For these Reasons he forbid her taking the Oath, but bid her tell the Court, that her Husband was the Father of that Child in his Arms. He also told her in the Court, that if she would be ruled by him, he would defend her from any damage.

But if she would joyn with the Court against him, by being a Witness that the Child was by Fornication, he should scruple to own her any more as a Wife.

But the Court continuing to urge her to take the Oath, promising her favour if she took it, & threatning her with severity if she refused to take it, at length she declared that she would not be ruled by J. R. but would accept of the Court's Favour, and so took the Oath; and the Favour which the Court granted her, was to pass this following Sentence.

§

New-London, at a County Court the 15th. of Septem. 1702.

Mary Ransford of New-London, being presented by the Grandjury-men to this Court, for having a Child by Fornication, which was born in March last, and she being now brought before this Court to answer for the same, being Examined who was the Father of her Child, she said John Rogers Senior of New-London, to which she made Oath, the said Rogers being present.

This Court having considered her Offence, Sentence her for the same, to pay unto the County Treasurer Forty Shillings Money, or to be whipt ten stripes on the naked Body. [Page]She is allowed till the last of November to pay her Fine.

A true Copy of the Record, as far as it respects the said Mary Ransford her Examination and Fine.

Test. John Picket, Clerk.

And now the poor Woman finding that by her Oath she had proved her Child illegitimate, and thereby denied her Marriage, and that her Husband dare not own her as a Wife; for I think that no Woman can be said to be a Wife, (though ever so lawfully married) if she turn so much against her Husband, as not only to disobey his most strict Commands, but also to prove by her Oath, that his Children are by Fornication as it was in this case.

She was also greatly terrified on account of her Whipping, to avoid which she some time after made her escape out of the Government, to a remote Island in Rhoad-Island Government, called Block-Island; and in about eight Years after she had thus been driven from her Husband, she was married to one Robert Jones, upon said Island, with whom she still lives in that Government.

Ant thus was J.R. deprived of his second Wife, who only for having a Child by her Husband, was thus driven from him; By which means she afterwards fell into Adultery, as his first Wife had done before.

And for the proof of what I have here asserted, take these following Testimonies.

§

The Testimony of James Wealch and Mary his Wife, both of lawful Age testify, That John Rogers's [Page]second Wife, whose Maiden Name was Mary Ransford, came to Block-Island after she left her Husband, and continued there several Years, and then was married to Robert Jones, by Edward Ball, Justice of the Peace, and has ever since lived with the said Jones in Rhoad-Island Government.

And we do farther testify, that they were married in the year 1710. Dated in Colechester, Novemb. 16th. 1725.

James Wealch.

Mary Wealch.

And thus having enjoyed his second Wife but about three Years, is again deprived of her; whereupon he again lived single twelve Years, which was four Years after she was married to Robert Jones, and then he made suit to one Sarah Coles of Oysterbay, on Long-Island, a Widow; and by reason of the many false Reports which had been spread about the Country, as if he had turned away his second Wife, &c. he offered the Woman to carry her to Block-Island, where she might know the truth of the matter, by discoursing with the Woman her self, as well as the Authority and Neighbours, which accordingly he did, by which means she was so well satisfied, that she proposed to be married before they came off; and accordingly were married by Justice Ray, who gave this following Certificate.

§

These Lines are to signify, That I the Subscriber married John Rogers of New-London, and Sarah Coles of Oysterbay, thu 25th of the seventh Month 1714. in Block-Island, in Rhoad-Island Colony.

Attested by me,

Simon Ray, Justice.

[Page] Thus it appears by comparing the date of his Marriage with the date of his Wive's Marriage to Robert Jones, that he remained single four Years after she was married.

And this is a true account of his two last Marriages.

But to return to P. P. who seems to rouse up his Courage, as if he intended to venture another Stroke at the dead Man with whom he is fighting, before he takes to his heels, and thereupon arms himself like an Ishmaelite, with Mocks and Scoffs; tho' all the Revenge he can promise himself thereby, is to move some vain spirited Person like himself to a Laughter.

And first, he begins as follows. ‘But before I conclude, let me mention some other of his Sufferings, which tho' he fretted at at home, yet never complained of publickly; I mean what happened to him about his Maid Mary Ransford, whom he first bought, then took to his Bed, (at least when he wanted her) till she proved with Child, and in the fifth or sixth Month of her pregnancy, as I remember, he solemnly betrothed her to him; then afterwards dwelling with her several years, and having had two Children by her, upon some disgust put her away, and all by his own Authority, agreeable to that Rule in the Law, at least in one Respect, that in the same way that a Contract is made, it may be made void.’

Reply. As to what he says that he first bought her, I grant to be true, which is an Argument that no Person had any challenge to her, and [Page]therefore no ways unlawful for him to Marry her.

2dly. Says he, ‘Then took to his Bed, at least when he wanted her.’

Reply. This I take to be a false and lascivious Speech.

First, it is false, because their first Child was not born within the limited time which the Law allows after their Marriage, nor were they ever charged with Fornication, nor any unclean act relating to their first Child: and as to his taking her to his Bed after he had Married her, no body doubts of it.

Yet to say a Man takes his Wife to Bed when he wants her, I suppose all modest People will take to be a lascivious speech.

In the next place he confesses, that after he had solemnly betrothed her to him, he lived with her several years, & had two Children by her, &c. Here he plainly proves what I have already asserted, (viz.) that the Courts punishing her, was only on the account of their Marriage, because J. R. could not in Conscience be Married in their Form, &c.

He also adds, that upon some disgust he put her away, and all by his own Authority, agreeable to that Rule, &c. that in the same way that a Contract is made, it may be made void.

This I affirm to be a positive Falshood, for it was the Authority of the Court which terrified her so as to cause her to renounce her Husband, and flee into another Government, and marry another Man, as has already been proved.

[Page] And as to his Rule in the Law, it is very applicable to the taking away of J. R.'s first Wife; for it was the Authority that married her to him, and the same Authority took her from him, without giving a Reason why they did it.

‘After which (says be) he was lawfully Married to a Woman of Oyster-Bay. He also adds, That he is not at all at a loss how J. R. and this Quaker Woman overlook'd the small disparity in Religion that was between them, so as to match together; but by what sophistry he levelled that horrible Jogg in his Conversation, respecting Mary aforesaid, I cannot imagine.’

Reply. I shall first inform the Reader what the horrible Jogg was, and secondly how it came to be removed.

First, The horrible Jogg was those horrible Lies which P. P. has now presumed to Print, which had been spread about the Country, as if J. R. had turned away his Wife; and the way that it came to be removed, was by carrying the Woman to Block Island, where she might not only have opportunity of discoursing with his Wife, who had left him twelve years, and had been Married four years to another Man, but also with the Authority and Neighbours, and so the horrible Jogg came to be levelled; that is, the horrible Lies came to be discovered to the Woman, and they were Married on the Island before they came off.

And now he proceeds in his Ishmaelitish Language as follows.

[Page]

To me I remember he accounted for it after this sort: said he, I have experienced wonderful operations of Gods hand upon my Body as well as upon my Soul, and so proceeding signified to me, that upon his entering into a state of suffering, he felt such a marvellous mortification of his members which were upon the Earth, as that his venereal Propensity in particular seemed to be totally extinguished. But however after he had encountered the sharpest of his Tryals, it flamed forth again, even beyond the limits of Nature, whereby it was manifest, that God's hand was in an eminent way in it. Whereupon, &c. And I never could get him an inch farther than this, yet he would not make a full stop neither, but signified to me, that in a more convenient time he would let me into that Mystery, and fully convince me that he did it by a divine Impulse from first to last. I guess he told Capt. Wetherell, who was then Judge of the Court, something of this story, by the Judge's Answer to him in Court.

You shall hear the Rounds of the matter, &c. It was thus, at a County Court at New-London, my self a Spectator, with a multitude of others being present, came J. R. into Court, leading in his hand Mary aforesaid, and applying himself to the Judges, said thus, (viz.) I desire you all to take notice, that I take this my Servant Maid to be my Wife; I bought her with my Money, and I take her to be my Wife. Replied the Judge, How? how? What do you mean John? why are you not Published and Married in an orderly way? Continued [Page]he, I do not regard your Laws in that respect, nor will I be Married by your Authority. Then applying himself directly to the Judge, said, Captain Wetherell, thou knowest something of the occasion of this, for I hinted it to thee at such a time. Replyed the Judge, Why thou filthy Beast, I know nothing that thou toldest me, but of a base Pang of Lust that beset thee; go for shame, be gone, the Court will not be hindred.

Reply. As to the first part of those Mocks and Scoffs, in which he pretends J. R. gave him an account concerning his Marrying his second Wife, I shall first give the Reader a true and exact account of what it was that J. R. told him, and the whole of it.

And 2dly. I shall offer some Reasons to convince the Reader, that the account I give is true, and that his Account is false.

First, As to what J. R. told him, my self being present, with divers others, P. P. asked him concerning his second Marriage, after he had so long lived single, &c.

J. R. told him that after he was unjustly deprived of his Wife, it pleased God to give him the gift of Continency for more than twenty years, after which time he thought it to be the Will of God for him to Marry again.

And this I affirm to be the whole of what he told him.

Now to satisfy the Reader that this account is true, and that P. P's. Relation is false, take these following Reasons.

[Page] First, Because J. R. was never addicted to use such foul and extravagant Language, but was always modest in his Discourse, as I doubt not but the greatest of his Enemies will readily witness in his behalf.

2dly. No Rational Person will suppose, that a Man of his Understanding, would frame such Mocks and Scoffs against himself.

3dly. A third Reason is, That were the account he gives translated out of his Ishmaelitish and debaucht Language, into a civil Tongue, it might express near the same thing as my account has done.

By these three Reasons it is plain that the account he pretends to give of this matter, is nothing else but some of his Ishmaelitish Arrows shot at his imagined Enemy.

And I do freely appeal to every Reader, who is endowed but with common Morality, whether this civil Answer of J. R. to P. P's. Question, deserves all those Mocks, Scoffs, Flouts and Derisions which P. P. has cast upon him: or whether it is not the express Image of the most lascivious debaucht and unmanly spirit of a Coward, thus to insult and trample upon the Grave of a dead Man.

And now having disgorged himself of thus much of his debaucht Meditations, and fathered it upon J. R. he prepares himself for another Vomit of the same matter, which he thinks to Father upon Capt. Wetherell, Judge of the Court, another dead Man, Whom the Clods of the Valley forbid to answer for himself, and accordingly proceeds as follows; You shall hear the Rounds of [Page]the matter, and so goes on as has already been shown, till he comes to these following words.

‘Replied the Judge, Why thou filthy Beast, I know nothing thou toldest me, but of a base pang of Lust that beset thee; go for shame, be gone, the Court will not be hindered.’

Reply. That these lascivious Words were never spoken by the Judge of the Court, but proceeded out of his own unclean Heart, is very obvious, for these two Reasons.

First, For that it is altogether uncredible to suppose that an elderly Man, who was Judge of a Court, should be so notoriously debauched and abusive, as to tell a Man who came civily into his Presence to be publickly married, that it was nothing but a base pang of Lust that beset him, and call him flthy Beast, and bid him be gone: Surely it would be a great abuse to the Judge of a Court after his Death, to suppose such a thing of him: Especially since there is no better proof of it than P. P's. bare Word, which has been proved false throughout his whole Book.

A second Reason is, because it so exactly agrees with the reft of his debauched Discourse throughout his Book, that any one may boldly say it is P. P's. Language, for his Speech bewrayeth him.

And now I can do no less than blame P. P. for that he neither attends the Rule of Scripture nor proper Speech; and yet in Page 39th. upbraids J. R. with the same thing, (viz.) for not attending the Rules of Speech in his Books.

[Page] Now had P. P. attended the Rule of Scripture which says, Judge your selves, he would not have been judging a dead Man, who is gone into the hands of a righteous Judge.

And 2dly. Had he attended the Rules of Speech, he would not have called Marriage a base pang of Lust, since it is written, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled; but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judge. By which we may observe, that Marriage is an Ordinance of God, and is not a base pang of Lust; but Whoredom and Adultery is a base pang of Lust: And had he attended these two Rules, he must have confessed, that himself was more properly the Effect of a base pang of Lust, than J. R's. marrying a second Wife, after he had been unjustly deprived of his Wife for more than twenty five Years.

But to follow him to the end of this Discourse, (says he) ‘In about three or four Months as I remember, Mary brought him a Child, he owned it, and got her with Child again, having suffered Persecution for the first according to Law; foreseeing the second Persecution, he charged Mary not to lay the Child to him, if examined by Authority, she promised him she would not, but failed of her Word; which occasioned him farther sufferings for his Conscience; which so roiled him, that he put her away, and dwelt no more with her.’

Reply, As to what he first asserts, (viz.) That Mary brought him a Child in three or four Months, and that he suffered Persecution for it according to Law, is abominably false; for the [Page]Authority never charged J. R. or his Wife with any Misdemeanour relating to their first Child, as has already been declared. And as to what he says that he charged her not to lay the Child to him, if examined by Authority, and that she promised him she would not, &c. is not only false, but so nonsensical and foolish, that it deserves no Answer: For what Person of common Reason will believe, that after he had been married in the King's Court, before a multitude of Spectators, as P. P. confesses in the same page, and then live with his Wife three Years, until he had had two Children by her, & then charge his Wife not to lay his last Child to him; surely none will believe such Folly. And whereas he signifies, that his second Child was the occasion of his suffering for Conscience, I confess to be true; for it was on account of his second Child, that his Wife was sentenced to be whipt, for which she fled out of the Colony, &c.

And that it was for his Conscience is evident, in that he could not in Conscience be married according to the Custom practiced in Connecticut Colony, which was the only Crime alledged against him, relating to that matter.

And whereas he says, that he put her away, and dwelt no more with her; that he put her away is false, for she denied him and left him, and married another Man, but that he dwelt no more with her is true, for she lives with the same Man to this Day.

And now having followed him thus far thro' his Mocks, Scoffs and Falshoods, in which he has been insulting and sporting himself over a [Page]dead Person, a Crime so contemptible, that nothing but the base and unmanly Spirit of a Coward could have endured to have done.

In the next place I can do no less than mind him of the severe Threatnings contained in the holy Scriptures, against such Persons as he is; who shall presume to sport themselves by mocking and scoffing at God's faithful Children after their Death, as he has done; which is to be seen Isai. 57.1, 2, 3, 4. Verses. The righteous perisheth and no man layeth it to heart; and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He shall enter into peace, they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness. But draw near hither ye sons of the Sorceress, the seed of the Adulterer and the WHORE. Against whom do ye sport your selves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the Tongue? Are ye not Children of transgression, a seed of falshood? &c.

Thus it appears, that God will surely call such Persons as P. P. to an account, for sporting themselves with their Falshoods at his People after their death.

In page 61. he endeavours to excuse his sullying the Character of the dead as follows, ‘Methinks when we are engaged in the Cause of Truth against Error, &c. it may be very warrantable, yea, necessary, and more especially where the case is peculiar as this is, that a Man boasting of Perfection, &c. should deliberately practice Whoredom, and live in it divers years, &c.’

[Page] Reply. But instead of being engaged in the cause of Truth against Error, he has been engaged in Lies against Truth, as has sufficiently been proved throughout his Book, both by the plain Records of the Courts, and other sufficient Evidence.

And as to what he says of J. R's. deliberately practising Whordom, and living in it divers years, it is manifest that he has Reference to the three years that he enjoyed his second Wife, before she was driven from him; for as I said before, after he was deprived of his first Wife, he lived single twenty five years, and then Married his second Wife, which he enjoyed but three years before he was deprived of her, and then remained single again twelve years before he Married his third Wife: So that he was suffered to keep a Wife but three years in forty, which three years is the time that P. P. charges him with deliberately practising Whoredom. For he was never charged with Whoredom the whole seven and thirty years that he lived single.

And I suppose P. P. forgets that he has several times in his Book owned her to be his Wife, as in page fifty eight, where he says, ‘He solemnly betrothed her to him, then afterwards dwelling with her several years, and having had two Children by her, &c.’ Here he plainly confesses, that it was after she was solemnly betrothed to him, that he had two Children by her; and yet in the turning over but one leaf forgets himself, and calls it deliberately practising Whoredom, &c. And thus is he left through [Page]the false and envious spirit by which he is acted, to confound his own discourse.

In page 62 he pretends to apply himself to such as are already fallen into the snare of that Fowler, &c. But I shall pass over much of this Discourse, judging it so nonsensical and contrary to the Scripture, that every Person of a common Capacity will easily discern the Folly of it.

In page 66. says he, ‘Again, be perswaded to take a view of J. R. and try whether he were a Minister of Christ or not, &c. In trying of his Authority to Preach and Baptize, I think you may safely conclude that the Office of a Gospel Minister is like that of a Priest, in this respect, (viz.) that no Man takes the honour of it upon himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Heb. 5.4. Wherefore the Apostle says plainly, in Rom. 10.15. How shall they Preach except they be sent.’

Reply. That all Gods Ministers both in the time of the Law and Gospel have been called of God, as was Aaron, I grant, and on the contrary all false Teachers and Hirelings which the World heaps up to themselves, have always had their call from an earthly Power, and are not called of God as was Aaron, and as to what is written Rom. 10.15. How shall they Preach except they be sent? (that is sent of God) by which I understand that none can Preach the Mysteries of God's Kingdom, but such who are sent of God, and to such God reveals his Mind and Will; so that they are capable to deliver their Message from his Mouth, and have no need to study vain [Page]Words out of their own Heart, as false Prophers and Hirelings have always done, as may be seen, Jer. 23.16. Thus saith the Lord of bosts, Hearken not to the Words of the Prophets that prophesy unto you, they make you vain, they speak a vision of their own beart, and not out of the Mouth of the Lord. 2 Pet. 2.1. But there were false Prophets also among the People, &c. Verse 3. And through Covetousness shall they with feigned Words make Merchandize of you. Thus the Scriptures shew us, that false Prophets who are not sent of God, are they who through Covetousness Preach studied or feigned Words out of their own Heart, and not from the Mouth of the Lord. For they are not called of God as was Aaron, and therefore are Ignorant of his Mind and Will.

2dly. Says he, That the call of God thereto is either first, extraordinary as God called divers of the Prophets of old, and as Christ called the Apostles, who always proved their Authority by Miracles, &c.

Or secondly, it is ordinary, (viz.) by Ordination and laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, &c.

And every Man pretending to that Office, has always been able to prove his Authority in the one or other of these ways, excepting a few such as George Fox and John Rogers.

Reply, As Apostates and Hereticks have ever been the fittest Instruments for Satan to spread his damnable Doctrines abroad by, so I know of no Heresy more dangerous than this now broacht by P. P. For if we are to reject, as he would have us, all Prophets and Gospel Ministers, [Page]who cannot prove their Authority either by Miracles or Ordination, and the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, then surely we must Condemn all those Blessed Witnesses which God raised up in the time of Popery, to testify against the Church of Rome, because they did not prove their Authority by Miracles; nor was there any to ordain them, but their cruel Persecutors under whom they suffered Martyrdoms.

Yet did God so open their understanding to understand the Scripture, and give them a Mouth and Wisdom, that all their Adversaries were not able to gainsay; which was a sufficient Testimony to prove their Authority, and that they were the true Ministers of Christ.

2dly. By the same Rule we must also condemn John the Baptist, and judge him to be a Deceiver; first, for that he did not prove his Authority by Miracles, as the Scripture plainly tells us, John 10.41. And many resorted to him, (that is Christ) and said John did no miracles, &c. Thus it appears by the Testimony of those who were the Followers of Christ, that John did no Miracle.

And 2dly. That he was not Ordained by the Presbytery, is clear from Mark 1.1. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, &c. Ver. 3, 4. The voice of one crying in the Wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did Baptise in the Wilderness, and preach the Baptism of Repentance, for the remission of Sins.

[Page] Thus it appears, that John's Ministry was the Beginning of the Gospel of Jusus Christ; and therefore no Person was capable to Ordain him to his Office: Otherwise they that did Ordain him, must have been in the Work before him, and he could not have been the beginner of it.

And thus if we take P. P's. Rule, we must number John the Baptist in with these few which he says are such as George Fox and John Rogers, because they have not proved their Authority by Miracles, nor the imposition of Hands, and so consequently we are to doubt of his Doctrine, which is the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and on which the whole New-Testament is built: And for as much as the Old-Testament is fulfilled in the New, this Heresy now broached by P. P. tends to the overthrow of both Old and New Testament, and so consequently to reduce the World into Paganism.

In Page 67. he goes on as follows. Once more be perswaded to make a few short but reasonable Reflections on some part of his Life, and see if you can therein discover the Characters and Signs of a Minister of Christ: Particularly the matter about Mary Ransford. And methinks Reason should guide you thus in your Thoughts, (viz.) First, That she was either his lawful Wife, or not; if not, then his Whore, &c.

[Page] Or, Secondly, If she were his lawful Wife, then his putting her away was without sufficient Grounds, &c.

And consequently he broke Wedlock, and committed Adultery in so doing. If you Reply, that David and Peter did as bad, I'll grant it; but I observe, that they both repented of, confessed and forsook their Sins; but he always justified his, and lived in it to the Day of his Death, that is his Adultery. If she were his Wife, as I think you will judge she was, &c.

Reply. As to his quaerying whether she were his Wife or his Whore, I take to be another of his Ishmaelitish Arrows shot at his imagined Enemy, for he has already confessed in page 58th. that the two Children he had by her were after he had solemnly betrothed her to him, and now again he says if she were his Wife, as I think you will judge she was.

Here again he makes no doubt but every one will judge her to be his Wife; so that there is no Argument between us concerning that point, since we both allow her to be his lawful Wife.

And as to what he says concerning his puting her away, I have already given an account how she was terrified by the Court, to deny and forsake her Husband, &c.

He also asserts, That he lived in his Adultery to the day of his Death, by which it is manifest [Page]that he forgets what he said in Page 59th. (viz.) That after this woman had left him, he was lawfully married to a Woman of Oysterbay, &c. which if he had not forgot himself, he could not have been so ignorant, but that he must have known that while a Man lived in Adultery, he could not be lawfully married to another Woman.

In Page 68th. he concludes with this following Exhortation, (viz.) ‘Finally, Pray & strive against this one Evil in special, which otherwise will greatly retard your progress from Darkness to Light, and that is the slavish Fear of being made the Scorn of Fools, and Song of the Drunkards, who will probably at every turn upbraid you of Unconstancy, twit you and yours of your Quakerism, and the like; this sort of Suffering is an evil Disease; it's what David earnestly deprecated after his Fall.’

Reply, Here he greatly abuses and wrests the holy Scriptures, through his own Ignorance and gross Darkness: For David was so far from being unconstant in matters of Religion, or giving his Adversaries occasion to twit him on that account, that the Scriptures testify that he was a Man after God's own Heart, save only in the matter of Uriah; and throughout the whole Scripture is he mentioned as a Pattern of all such as was most constant and unmovable in matters of Religion; And as to what David laments in the 69th Psalm 12th Verse, how that he was the Song of the Drunkards, was not after [Page]his Fall, as P. P. ignorantly affects: For before his Fall, and always after to the Day of his Death, he was the most honourable King upon the Earth; being honoured not only by God and his Church, but by all the great Nations in the World, who were most of them his Servants and Tributaries, and therefore was far enough from being the Scorn of Fools and Song of the Drunkards. But the time that he was the Song of the Drunkards, was when Saul with his drunken Army were hunting him like a Partridge in the Mountains, and drove him out of all the Coasts of Israel, into other Kingdoms, which he also laments in the same Psalm at the 8th. verse, in these Words, I am become a stranger to my Brethren, and an aliant to my Mothers Children. Now we know that he was no stranger to his Brethren after his Fall, but was their King, and dwelt among them. By which it is manifest, that these Expressions of David had only reference to the time of his exile by Saul, and not after his fall as P. P. has ignorantly asserted; yet that this evil Disease which he seems to groan under, has been very grievous to him, I doubt not, (viz.) being twitted with his unconstancy in Religion, [...].

But how he thinks to get rid of his evil disease I know not, since he so much slighted his Religion when he had it, as to swap and change it about till he had none left; and for him to think to help his evil Disease by comparing himself to the Prophet David, whose Life and Conversation was of such an infinite Longitude [...]de of the Life and Conversation of P. P. that the [Page]very comparison tends more to stir up the stink of his evil Disease, than any ways to abate it.

And now having gone through his Book, I shall look back and briefly mind the Reader of some Remarkable Passages therein contained, which may be worthy of Observation. First, as to his Advertisement, he tells us, it was finished by the best advice since John Rogers's Death.

Now compare this with what he says in his seventh page, where he tells us, that when he began to fear that he had been in the way of an erroneous and Heterodox Religion, &c. that with all possible earnestness, he asked Counsel of the Wonderful Counsellor, and Wisdom of him that gives it liberally to all, &c.

From which I observe, that the Spirit which he was acted by in the time of his visitation, (which he calls his being led into Quakerism) led him in times of difficulties to ask Advice and Counsel of God, who is the Wonderful Counsellor, and he that gives Wisdom to all, &c.

But since his Apostasy, he calls that the best Advice which advises him to deride and bely a Man in his Grave; which Advice must needs be given him either by the Father of Lies, or some of his Children, which is another manifest Proof of his Apostasy.

Another thing which I shall take notice of, is in page 54 where he asserts, that the Divorcing [Page] J. R's. Wife from him, was his Adultery and Beastiality.

To which I answer, Here he greatly reflects upon the Authority of the Government, for if J. R. was guilty of Beastiality, then the Authority was highly guilty of injustice in a two fold manner.

1st. Because they did not execute that Punishment on him which both the Law of God and their own Law required them to have done, which is Death.

And 2dly. It was great injustice to take away his Wife on that account, because there is no Law of God nor this Colony that allows of such a Sentence.

And 3dly. They were highly guilty of Perjury, in not acting according to the Law of God and this Colony, which they were bound by their solemn Oath to have done.

And thus P. P. by belying J. R. has greatly exposed the Authority of the Government.

Again in page 60. and 61. he informs the Reader, how the Authority Punished John Rogers and his second Wife on account of their two Children, and yet in page 58. confesses that J. R. had both the Children by her after he had solemnly betrothed her to him.

[Page] So that in short P. P. charges the Authority with Punishing J. R. for having Children by his Wife, and acquitting him for Beastiality.

And now to conclude, under the consideration of John Rogers's great Sufferings, which began soon after his Conversion, and continued all his Life after which was near fifty years, and that now after his Death the Adversary having stirred up P. P. to pursue him in his Grave with Mocks, Scoffs and abominable Lies, and yet throughout his whole Book, is not able to prove him guilty of any one Misdemeanour in the whole course of his Life, which is a sufficient Argument that he is one of those which Christ speaks of, Mat. 5.11, 12. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake: Rejoyce and be exceeding glad, for great u your Reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you.

FINIS.

§

§

Printed for the Author, and sold at his House in New-London, 1726.

Information about this book

Title statement

An answer to a book lately put forth by Peter Pratt, entituled, The prey taken from the strong. Wherein by mocks and scoffs, together with a great number of positive falshoods, the author hath greatly abused John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, since his death. : In which answer there is a true and impartial relation of those sufferings of John Rogers, on which the author has built his abuses: as also many of the said scoffs, falshoods, blasphemous expressions, great abuses of Scripture, together with many gross contradictions and ignorant speeches contained in said book; all which are discovered and plainly proved, / By John Rogers. ; [Six lines of Scripture texts]

Rogers, John, 1674-1753.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2011-05.

ID [DLPS]

N02367

ID [TCP]

N02367

ID [STC]

Evans 2809

ID [NOTIS]

APX9822

ID [IMAGE-SET]

2809

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99026829

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 2809.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N02367)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 2809)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 2809)

Source

— An answer to a book lately put forth by Peter Pratt, entituled, The prey taken from the strong. Wherein by mocks and scoffs, together with a great number of positive falshoods, the author hath greatly abused John Rogers, late of New-London, deceased, since his death. : In which answer there is a true and impartial relation of those sufferings of John Rogers, on which the author has built his abuses: as also many of the said scoffs, falshoods, blasphemous expressions, great abuses of Scripture, together with many gross contradictions and ignorant speeches contained in said book; all which are discovered and plainly proved, / By John Rogers. ; [Six lines of Scripture texts], Rogers, John, 1674-1753..

Extent

xii, 87, [1] p. ; 18 cm. (8vo)

Printed [by William Bradford] for the author, and sold at his house in New London,,. [New York] :: 1726.. (Imprint from colophon. Place of publication and printer's name supplied by Evans.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.