| Shared note | 25 March 2012 - The Bible of John Rogers the Martyr of Smithfield, England
| | by jgeoghan | | Today I was attempting to clean up the websites I'd bookmarked in my favorites bar. I came across a google book I had marked to go back to called "Signers of the Mayflower Compact" By Annie Arnoux Haxtun. It has some interesting info on the Rogers Family Bible. I have to add that I think I asked about this Bible when I was up at Alfred University a few years ago and although the folks there were very helpful, I don't think they knew if they had this Bible or not. Does anyone out there now it's current location??? | | | Here is some of the interesting parts on the Rogers family as transcribed by me: | | | Signers of the Mayflower Compact, By Annie Arnoux Haxtun, Originally Published New York 1897-1899, Page 62-63 | | | “No matter who James Rogers, of New London, was descended from he had children and made a will leaving behind him a clear record of his doings, his value in the community and the amount of his estate. | | | He came to Americain the ship Increase in 1635, aged 20 years, always supposed to be a descendant of John the Martyr. Few people have greater reason for making a claim, or feeling that they substantiated it, that this on the part of James Rogers. It needs no discussion; it comes authentically, so far as anything can, from the librarian of Alfred University, New York State, where the Bible recorded as from John the Martyr, of Smithfield,England, is preserved. | | | To strengthen and prove its value, I quote verbatim from the copy of the Bible records: | | | Written on inside cover is the following: | | | Cranmer’s first edition, to which this accurately corresponds, was first published in 1539. The archbishop was burned by Bloody Mary in 1556. We give this the date of 1549 for fear of antedating. Fifteen hundred and thirty-nine might, with more propriety, have been its date,” | | | The following is written on the first fly leaf: | | | The New Testament of our Lord Christ | | | Translated from the original Greek by Cranmer, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, in the second year of Edward VI.’s reign MDXLIX | | | The following is written on the second fly leaf: | | | Hoc Novum Testamentum Republica eruditissimis viris ostensum est, inter quos alliqui illustres Theologiae Doctores errant, Id cum libris et codcillis amplissimarum bibliothcarum collatum est, et declaratum est Cranmeris Episcopi, primariiCanterbury, edition promulgate anno Domini MDXLIX, et in Brittaniae Regis Edvardi VI. Secundo anno | | | Gulialmus H. Porter | | | Waterford, Conn., Oct. 1st, 1839 | | | The following is a newspaper clipping pasted on a fly leaf taken from the “New London Repository:” | | | The Bible of John Rogers the Martyr. Little did we dream, in the days of our boyhood, while with eager curiosity and childish simplicity we used to pore over the pages of the New England primer, and pause with almost tearful sympathy over the quaint old wood cut representing the burning of the martyr, John Rogers, at the stake, attended by “his wife and nine small children, with one at the breast,” that we should ever behold the Bible, the veritable Bible, read, pondered and prayed over by that noble martyr to the Christian faith. But we have the privilege of recording the strange fact that we have seen, handled and perused the identical precious relic of the days of Smithfield fires and the bloody persecution of the reign of the cruel Mary. | | | The book itself is a small, thick quarto, containing the New Testament (the translation of Cranmer in 1539), the Psalms and a portion of the liturgy of the Protestant Church at that time. The title page, a few of the first and the last leaves have been lost, the book having been twice rebound. It is printed in the large, full, ancient German text, with ornamental initial letters to a portion of the chapters and a few marginal references. | | | The Chapters are divided, as in King James’s version, but they have no division into verses, capital letters in the margin indicating the commencement of paragraphs as they occur in each chapter. | | | In various parts of the book we find brief notes and memorandums by different person relative to its carefully cherished and authentic history. | | | This venerable book, by a careful comparison with a number of ancient copies in the library of Yale College, New Haven, is ascertained by antiquarians to have been printed in 1549, in the days of King Edward VI., under the patronage of Thomas Cranmer, the primate of England, who was burnt at Oxford, March 1. 1556, in the third year of Mary’s reign, a little more than two years after Rogers was burnt at Smithfield. | | | The Bible was kept as an heirloom by the family, descendants of the venerated martyr, having been concealed from the minions of the bloody Queen during the remainder of her reign, in a bed, and carefully preserved until it passed into the hands of James Rogers, a descendant (great-grandson son, as by himself stated) of the martyr, by whom, when 20 years of age, it was brought over to this country. | | | He emigrated to New Haven in 1635, and most sacredly kept the precious relic in all his sojourns in this, then, wilderness, as a protection against the attacks of savage foes, or a talisman against misfortune. It came into the possession of Jonathan, the fifth son of James Rogers, descended to his eldest child, who, by marriage, became connected with the Potter family of Hopkinton, RI, - Conclusion of the Newspaper Clipping. | | | The Bible has been most religiously cherished in this family about a hundred years and is not the property of Mrs. Saunders, niece of the late Miss Polly Potter of Potter Hill, RI. | | | It has been confined for a short time, as a precious relic, to Capt. Daniel Rogers, of this city, by whose indefatigable antiquarian genealogical researches its historical connection with every family through which it has passed has been fully established back through the descendants of the former owner. James Rogers, who came to America in 1635, as above stated. | | | Delays are not always dangerous, and to secure all that can be known requires the giving of sufficient time to leave no stone unturned to gather in the history all are anxious for. | | | A great searcher is certainly entitled to every consideration. One follows almost blindly their train of thought, and accepts it from the very force of their argument, but even in the face of my own willingness, I cannot see any cause why James Rogers of Newport, RI, should claim place as possible son Thomas of the Mayflower, as against James Rogers of New London. | | | Mr. Drummond has effectually disposed of John of Milford; left no possible argument in his favor, though even having two sons of the same name in a family is not without historical precedent, as Mr. Ethan Allen Doty found in his searches. | | | Rhode Island colonial records give that James Rogers was a freeman at Newport,RI, March 15, 1643; was elected sergeant of the General Assembly march 15, 1643 and continued such until 1664 and was also Solicitor General in 1657. In 166 his widow, Mary Rogers (then Mary Peabody) petitions to settle his accounts. | | | THE MARTYR’S BIBLE | | | Experts, whose opinions are all valuable, believe in the Bible now in the Museum of Alfred University as belonging to John, the Smithfield Martyr, inherited by his descendant, James Rogers, of New London and by him brought to this country. | | | This coincides with my own convictions and on this platform I propose to work, acknowledging from the onset that many records which would have been convincing to me a short time since, to-day, from the fact of my long searching among these people of Pilgrim claim, have only led me to make an entire change of belief. | | | Each historian of his family has given, according to his lights, the opinions formed from the records found. They have turned all the stones in their line to march, but have left many, as a matter of course, to be removed by others. | | | jgeoghan | April 25, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Tags: Genealogy, New London CT, Rogers Family | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pSemw-kI | | | 20 Sep 2012 - Rogers House in Waterford, CT | | by jgeoghan | | While in Waterford, CT on my road trip I wanted to stop by and see the Rogers House in the photos below. My cousin took them many years ago, probably in the 80's if I had to guess. It's 11 Magonk Point Road in Waterford. Here's the pictures my cousin took of the house. | | | However.... this is what I found at 11 Magonk Point Road. A lovely home, No? It would appear that the Rogers home was torn down. :-( I found some info on line that said the house that stands there now was built in 2010 but I don't know how accurate that is. | | | The Rogers House was mentioned in this book on the history of Waterford, It was built on land originally belonging to James Rogers, who in 1686 deeded the land and a house to his son, Jonathan, who drowned off Gull Island in 1697. It is thought that the stonework from the original James Rogers house was probably incorporated into the house that stood there until, well until it was torn down by the folks who built their lovely mansion on top of it. Not that I'm bitter about this or anything. When I visited the New London Historical Society a few days later I asked the lady there about this, a historical home being torn down and she said that it's happening all over New London County at an alarming rate. | | | Here's the book on the History of Waterford that mentions the house. | | | James Rogers House | | | 30 Sep 2012 - Road Trip Report: The Old Town Mill in New London | | by jgeoghan | | One of the first stops on my road trip was to visit the Old town Mill in New London, CT. Located just a ways north of where the ferry gets in, the mill sits right underneath and between the North and South bound lanes of 95. In the photo below you can see the Southbound land of 95 looming not to far in the distance and the shadow on the mill itself is from the Northbound lane. | | | If you google "Mill Street, New London, CT" you can see it's location easy enough. Mill Street is very small. Here is what you'll see. The mill is just above the red circle with the A. If you look closely, you can see it's roof. (Click on the image to see it close up) | | | James Rogers (2 Feb 1615 to 16 Feb 1687, husband of Elizabeth Rowland) my 7th Great Grandfather came from Milford, CT to work the mill and so the Rogers family established itself in the are of New London, CT. | | | While researching this post, I came across an interesting article on the Mill from The New London Day from 2 Oct 1986. Here it is: (FYI, she says it's easy to find because of good signage but don't believe it. I saw one sign off the main road but completely missed the turn I was supposed to take. I only found it because I drove down roads that went under 95 and using that logic it was pretty easy to find. Not much traffic there so I could drive slow till I spotted it.) | | | Here is the Mill and James Rogers mentioned in History of Montville: | | | History of Montville, Connecticut Formerly the North Parish of New London from 1640 to 1896, by Henry Augutus baker, 1896, Pager 176-178 | | | JAMES ROGERS the first came to America in the ship Increase," from London, in England, in 1685, at the age of twenty years. He is first known at Stratford, New Haven county, where lie married Elizabeth (1) daughter of Samuel Rowland. They afterwards removed to Milford, where his wife united with the Rev. Mr. Prudden's church in 1645, and he in 1652.Their children were, baptized at Milford. Mr. Rogers had dealings in New London in 1656, and, liking it as a place of business, fixed himself permanently as an inhabitant of the plantation there, previous 1660. Here he soon achieved property and influence, and was much engaged, both in the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the place. He was six times elected representative to the general court. | | | Governor Winthrop had encouraged his settling in New London, and accommodated him with portion of his own house lot next the mill, which afterwards leased to him. On this lot Mr. Rogers built a dwelling house of stone. He was a baker,and carried on the business on a large scale, often furnishing biscuit for seamen and thee colonial troops, and between the years 1661 awl 1670 had a greater interest in the trade of that post then any other person in the place. | | | His landed possessions became very extensive, consisting of several hundred acres on the Great Neck, a tract of land at Mohegan at the place called Pamechog, now called Massapeag, several house lots in town, and twenty-four hundred acres on the east able of the river, which was held in partnership with Colonel Pyncheon of Springfield. | | | James Rogers, the ancestor of a great throng of descendants, was an upright and circumspect man. At his first settlement in New London, both himself and his wife united with Mr. Bradstreet's church. They, however,after a few years, became dissenters in some sort from the established Congregational church and joined the Sabbatarians and were afterwards called Quakers. | | | There is no account of any dealings with him and his wife on account of their secession from the church. . Of his latter years, little a known.Mr. Rogers was born about 1615, and is supposed to be the son of Rev.John Rlogers of Dedham, in England, who died in 1636, and his descendants hold to a tradition that he was the grandson of the Rev. John Rogers of London, who was burned at the stake in Smithfield in 1555, during the reign of "Bloody" Queen Mary. . Recent genealogical researches have,however, thrown much doubt as to this lineal connection of this stock of Rogers with that of the martyr. | | | James Rogers died at New London in February, 1687-8, when the government of Sir Edmund Andros was paramount in New England. His will was therefore proved in Boston. The first settlement of the estate was entirely harmonious. The children, in accordance with his earnest request, made an amicable division of the estate, which was sanctioned by the general court, May 12, 1602. | | | Children | | | 2. Samuel, b. at Stratford 12 Dir. 1640; m. 17 Nov., 1061, Mary Stanton,day of Thomas Stanton. | | | 3. Joseph, b. at Stratford 14 May, 1646; m. about 1671, Sarah ______ | | | 4. John, b. at Stratford 1 Dec., 1648; m.17 Oct., 1670, Elizabeth Griswold, dau, of Mathew Griswold. | | | 5. Bathsheba, b. at Stratford 30 Dec., 1650; m. 4 March 1669-70, 1stRichard Smith; 2d, Samuel Fox. | | | 6. James, b. at Milford 15 Feb, 1652;.m. 5 Nov., 1674, Mary Jordan, dau,of Jeffrey Jordan. | | | 7. Jonathan, b. probably at Milford 31 Dec., 1655; m. Naomi Burdick, dau.of Elder Burdick of Newport, R. I. | | | 8. Elizabeth, b. probably at New London 15 April 1658; m. Samuel Beeby. | | | _____________________________ | | |
|
Grace (Makin) RAVENS