A Genealogical Dictionary of  The First Settlers of New England,
Before 1692

Volume #3
Roe - Rogers

 By James Savage

Special thanks to Robert Kraft and his assistant, Benjamin Dunning for scanning this book and to Warren Wetmore for perfecting the text and providing technical help in presenting this work for researchers to enjoy.

 

ROE, ANTHONY, Falmouth or Scarbrough 1663-83, of good repute in 1670, as by the court with ano. he was made conjoint. constable of both towns. EDWARD, Exeter, sw. alleg. 30 Nov. 1677. ELIAS, Charlestown, m. 17 July 1656, Rebecca, d. of Robert Long, had John, bapt. 27 Nov. 1670. He d. 18 Jan. 1687, his w. have d. earlier. HUGH, Hartford 1661, rem. perhaps to Salem, but, in 1669, is on the freem. list of Conn. and bef. 1678, was at Suffield, there d. 5 Aug. 1689, and his w. Abigail d. 3 Sept. foll. He had first liv. at Weymouth, and there his d. Esther d. 11 July 1655; and his s. Samuel was b. 14 Jan. foll. wh. d. the yr. bef. his f. and other ch. nam. in his will were Peter, Mary Denslow, Elizabeth Merrill of Saybrook and Abigail Taylor; gr.ch. Abigail Kent; and three Warners. JOHN, Charlestown, prob. s. of Elias, by w. Ruth, had Elias, bapt. 26 Aug. 1688, d. in few days; John, 27 Oct. 1689; and Ruth, 5 Apr. 1691. MARK, York 1666, serv. that yr. on the gr. jury. PETER, Suffield, s. of Hugh, m. 1689, Sarah, d. of Thomas Remington, and had sev. ch. RICHARD, Charlestown, br. of Elias, wh. had admin. of his est. after he perish. Nov. 1666, by casual. at sea. Sometimes, but rarely, these names are enriched with a w.

ROGERS, ANDREW, a passeng. from London 1671, in the Arabella, of wh. no more is heard in our country. DANIEL, Ipswich, s. of Presid. John, m. Sarah, d. of the first John Appleton, tho. the Apleton mem. p. 16, makes her w. of Samuel R. had Sarah, wh. d. inf.; Sarah, again, b. 27 Apr. 1694, d. soon; Sarah, again, 29 Mary 1695; Margaret, prob. 8 Jan. 1699; Elizabeth; Priscilla; Mary; Daniel, 17 Oct. 1706, H. C. 1725, the min, of Littleton; John, 16 Sept. 1708; Patience, 4 Sept. 1710; and Nathaniel, 6 Aug. 1712, d. in few days. He was sch.master, town clk. and reg. of probate, tho. his handwriting is ill, and he perish. in a cold snowstorm on Hampton Beach, 1 Dec. 1722. See Geneal. Reg. VI. 70. DAVID, Braintree, had Ruth, b. 3 Jan. 1641; and he d. 24 Sept. 1642. ELEAZER, Milford, was freem. 1669, and the name was perpet. there to 1713. 

EZEKIEL, Rowley, first min. there, s. of Richard, a disting. Purit. divine of Weathersfield, Co. Essex, wh. is assum. by the author of the mem. of Fam. of Nathaniel, but with slight, or, as I think, not even slight, support for his assumpt. to be s. of him burned at the stake 1555, was bred at Cambridge, where in 1604, he was of Corpus Christi, when he had his A. B. and of Christ's Coll. in 1608, on rec. his A. M. came in 1638, with his w. Sarah, d. of John Everard, Citiz. of London, wh. d. in ten yrs. He had serv. long aft. 1621, with great reput. and favor Archbp. Matthews, in that parish in Yorksh. whose [[vol. 3, p. 560]] name was adopt. here by the people wh. accomp. him; and in a commission out of chanc. for inquisit. into misapplica. of funds giv. by the Queen, he was includ. by her Majesty, as first among seven clerg. after the Archbp. of York, the E. of Cumberland, three baronets, six knights, and eight esqrs. See Oliver's Hist. of Beverly, 195, 6. He was freem. 23 May 1639, had for sec. w. a. d. of Rev. John Wilson, wh. d. bef. giv. b. to her first ch. and the third w. Mary, wh. surv. him was wis. of Thomas Barker, m. 16 July 1651; but when he d. 23 Jan. 1661, leav. good est. there was no ch. to inherit; nor is it kn. that he ever had a s. EZEKIEL, Ipswich, s. of Rev. Nathaniel, m. Margaret, wid. of Thomas Scott, d. of William Hubbard, and sis. of the histor. had Martha; Nathaniel, b. 14 Aug. 1664; John, 12 June 1666; Ezekiel, 4 June 1667; Timothy and Samuel; and d. 5 July 1675. His wid. d. 1678, and her will of 22 June was pro. 17 Sept. of the same yr. in it she speaks of being extrix. of her s. Thomas Scott's est. and gives L40 to the s. Rogers, and d. Snelling of her d. Snelling, the name of wh. d. was, I believe, Margaret. 

GAMALIEL, Boston, s. of Simon, by w. Mercy, had Jane, b. 3 Jan. 1689. GEORGE, Maine, was of the jury 1650, but of what town I see not. HENRY, Springfield, took the o. of alleg. 1678. It is not kn. whether he came from Eng. or was b. here, but prob. the latter; and he m. 30 Dec. 1675, Mary, eldest d. of Richard Exell of S. had Mary, b. 23 Dec. 1676, d. within 4 yrs. John, 5 Mar. 1678; Dorothy, 5 Sept. 1679; Mary, 8 Aug, 1681; a. d. Apr. 1683, d. soon; and Henry, 28 Dec. 1687, and d. 26 Sept. 1724. His wid. d. 23 Oct. 1732. Both his s. had fams. Mary m. 1702, Samuel Cooper; and Dorothy m. 1704, James Taylor the younger. James, New London, is by Miss Caulkins thought to be that passeng. in the Increase from London, 1635, aged 20, and was early at Stratford, there m. Elizabeth d. of Samuel Rowland, rem. to Milford, had Samuel, b. a. 1640; Joseph, bapt. 1646; John, 1648; Bathsheba, 1650; James, a. 1652; Jonathan, b. 31 Dec. 1655; and Elizabeth 1658; soon aft. he rem. to N. L. was the richest man in the settlm. after Gov. Winthrop freem. 1660, rep. 1661-8 and in 1676, began to make with his childr. much opposit. to inf. bapt. and d. a. 1688. bathsheba m. 4 Mar. 1670, Richard Smith of N. L. and next Samuel Fox as his third w. and Elizabeth m. 9 Feb. 1682, the sec. Samuel Beeby. From this man, thro. his fifth s. Jonathan, is deriv. the ancient imperfect vol. contain. the Psalms and New Testam. with a ch. liturgy thot. to be of the days of Edward VI. 

JAMES, Newport 1638, adm. freem. 1640, and is in the list of 1655, and was gen. serg. 1661-3. JAMES, Eastham, s. of Joseph, m. 11 Jan. 1671, Mary, d. prob. of the first Thomas Paine, had James b. 30 Oct. 1673; Mary, 9 Nov. 1675; and Abigail, 2 Mar. 1678; was a lieut. and d. 13 Apr. foll. JAMES, [[vol. 3, p. 561]] New London, s. of James of the same, a sea capt. m. 5 Nov. 1674, Mary, d. of Jeffrey Jordan, of wh. very pleasant tradit. is told by Caulkins, p. 202, tho. as nothing was ever heard of her f. or mo. or bro. or sis. it may fail of truth in some partic. had James, Mary, Elizabeth Sarah, Samuel, Jonathan, Richard, and William. In 1677, his w. was fin. for absence from pub. worship as estab. by the governm. and soon after he and his w. were vexed for worsh. estab. by his f. and friends. He d. 8 Nov. 1713. 

JEREMIAH, Dorchester, m. Mehitable, d. prob. eldest of John Pierce, and had three ch. as in the will of their gr.f. Pierce in 1661, is ment. viz. Margaret, bapt. 1653; Mehitable, b. 6 Oct. 1658; and Ichabod, bapt. 27 May 1660, brot. to D. for the Ordin. from Lancaster, whither his f. had rem. beside prob. that Sarah, wh. by rec. of D. d. 21 Sept. 1657. JOHN, Duxbury 1634, prob. of Plymouth 1631, rep. 1657, by w. Frances, had John, Joseph, Timothy, Ann, Mary, and Abigail. In his will of 1 Feb. 1661, he calls hims. of Marshfield, names w. and the six ch. beside gr.ch. George and John Russell. Ann m. John Hudson; and one of the other ds. m. the sec. George Russell. He may have been br. of the first Thomas. 

JOHN, Watertown 1636, freem. 17 May 1637; JOHN, Weymouth, m. 16 Apr. 1639, Ann, d. prob. of Hugh Churchman, had Lydia, b. 27 Mar. 1642, rem. 1644., to Scitutate, going thither, with Rev. Mr. Witherell. This led Deane, he says, to conject. that he was a descend. of him of Smithfield, whose martyrdom was above 99 yrs. bef. and perhaps a slighter conject. never was brought in aid of a trifling tradit. A tradit. prob. equal. worthless, to sustain that, is giv. by D. that the mo. of W. was also a descend. of the martyr. He had also John, Thomas, and Samuel, prob. the first, if not more, b. in Eng. and went back to W. there d. 11 Feb. 1662. The Weymouth man was a deac. and his will of 8 Feb. 1661, pro. 30 Apr. foll. satisfied me. that Deane had confus. two if not three Johns into one. (See Geneal, Reg. X. 265-6). It gives est. to w. Judith, s. John, ds. Mary Rane, i.e. prob. Rand, w. of John, Lydia, wh. m. 19 Sept. 1660, Joseph White; Hannah m. the same day, Samuel Pratt, and Sarah. The h. of Mary was John. So that we may be sure that Scituate man, with s. Thomas and Samuel, was ano. and that Deane misled Barry in his Hist. of Hanover; and Winsor in his Hist. of Duxbury. 

JOHN, Watertown, freem. 13 Mar. 1639, m. 1640, Priscilla Dawes at Boston, wh. on her join. the ch. is call. maid serv. of our Elder Thomas Oliver, had John, b. 11 Sept. 1641; Mary, 26 Oct. 1643; Thomas; Daniel Nathaniel; and prob. sev. ds. was perhaps a baker, rem. to Billerica, there his d. Abigail m. Arthur Warren of Chelmsford; Priscilla, wh. m. 19 Jan. 1682, Simon Coolidge, as sec. w. was prob. ano. His s. John was k. by the Ind. 5 Aug. 1695, was also, on the same day, his br. [[vol. 3, p. 562]] Thomas, and his s. Thomas, aged 11 yrs. Both these s. as well as Daniel and Nathaniel, and d. Priscilla are nam. in his will, made three days aft. that date, of wh. T. and N. were excors. From this we learn also that he had sec. w. for he gives to his w.'s s. George Brown, and her d. Mary B. and he d. 25 Jan 1686. But ano. 

JOHN, prob. older, was of Watertown as early perhaps as the preced. and may have been of Dedham 1636, m. so late as Nov. 1653 (but it may have not been first w.), Abigail Martin, had Abigail, b. 21 Jan. 1657; and he d. 22 Dec. 1674, aged 80. Dr. Bond suppos. he was f. of Billerica John. JOHN, Scituate, s. of John of the same, prob. b. in Eng. m. at Boston, 8 Oct. 1656, Rhoda, d. of Elder Thomas King of S. had John, and perhaps Abigail, or others, but not, I think, the Mary, or Elizabeth or Hannah ascrib. to him by Deane, as they were ds. of the Weymouth deac.; Mary was sis. of her wh. m. Joseph White of S. and of the other two, prob. unless the dates for m. of the three several. were by him intend. to mean dates of b. Confus. in Deane, is here evident, but what he should have said is uncert. Abigail m. 1678, Timothy White of S. 

JOHN, Milford 1646, d. 1684. His will of 1 Dec. 1683, names ch. Eliezer, Jabez, Abigail, wh. was w. of Ephraim Stiles, John, and gr.ch. Ruth Beardsley. JOHN, Huntington, L. I. adm. 1664, freem. of Conn. and in 1669, had been two yrs. perhaps of Branford, d. bef. 1676, prob. without being m. or at least without ch. for his br. Noah inherit, his est. JOHN, Ipswich, eldest s. of Rev. Nathaniel, b. in Eng. early in 1631 (not 1620, as Geneal. Reg. X. 148), prob. at Coggeshall in Essex, where liv. the f. of his mo. but Farmer says at Assington in Suff. was both physician and preacher after leav. Coll. 1649, and some yrs. I believe, was of Boston, but of so common a name, a mistake is very easy; freem. 1674; m. Elizabeth only d. of Maj-Gen. Daniel Dennison, had Elizabeth b. one acc. says 3, ano. 26 Feb. 1662; Margaret, 18 Feb. 1664,; John, 7 July 1666, H. C. 1684; Daniel, 25 Sept. 1667, H. C. 1686; Nathaniel, 22 Feb. 1670, H. C. 1687; and Patience, 13 or 25 May, 1676; preach. occasional. as aid to Cobbett and Hubbard, was chos. Presid. to succeed Hoar, 1676, but decline. and his classmate Oakes was appoint. but aft. d. of O. he was again chos. 1683, when Mather and Torrey had declin. the offer, and d. 2 July 1684, less than one yr. from enter. on his office. His wid. d. 13 June 1723. Elizabeth m. 23 Nov. 1681, John Appleton; Margaret, m. 28 Dec. 1686, Dr. Thomas Berry, and next, 25 Nov. 1697, Hon. John Leverett, and d. 7 June 1720; and Patience, m. 15 Apr. 1696, Benjamin Marston of Salem, and d. 22 May 1731. Never, I think, is heard any suggest. that he was of the stock of the martyr of Smithfield, when it might have been difficult to avoid that topic of congratula. had any of his realtives or friends believ. it. 

JOHN, Duxbury or Marshfield, perhaps s. of Thomas of the Mayflower, and left at home some yrs. Winsor says, had Elizabeth wh. m. 17 Nov. 1668, Nathaniel William of Taunton; [[vol. 3, p. 563]] Abigail, wh. m. a Richmond; and Hannah, m. 23 Nov. 1664, John Tisdale; beside, I presume, that Thomas, bapt. at Scituate, 6 May 1638. JOHN, Duxbury, m. Nov. 1666, Elizabeth d. of William Peabody, had Hannah, b. Nov. 1668; John, 22 Sept. 1670; Ruth, 18 Apr. 1675; Sarah, 4 May 1677; and Elizabeth He may be the same whose d. is rec. at Marshfield, 7 May 1717, in his 85th yr. if liberal discount be allow. for exagger. Far more prob. is it that the other John of D. was thus long lived. JOHN, Eastham, s. of Joseph, m. 19 Aug. 1669, Elizabeth Twining, perhaps d. of William, had Samuel, b. 1 Nov. 1671, d. soon; John, 1 Nov. 1672; Judah, 23 Nov. 1677; Joseph, 22 Feb. 1679; Elizabeth 23 Oct. 1682; Eleazer, 18 May 1685; Mehitable, 13 Mar. 1687; Hannah, 5 Aug. 1689; and Nathaniel, 3 Oct. 1693. His wid. Elizabeth d. 10 Mar. 1725. 

JOHN, New London, s. of James the first, m. 17 Oct. 1670, Elizabeth d. of Matthew Griswold, had Elizabeth b. 8 Nov. 16571; and John, 20 Mar. 1674; began, bef. the end of this yr. to assert opinions and follow forms in relig. wh. disgust. his w. wh. desir. divorce next yr. and aft. 18 mos. gain. the reluct. assent of the Ct. wh. allow. her to retain both the ch. Yet as the ch. grew up, they took to their f. perhaps bec. the mo. had m. 5 Aug. 1679, Peter Pratt, and, in 1691, a third h. Matthew Beckwith. He was found. of a new sect. call. Rogerenes, but tho. he had the glory of kn. that his writings were condemn. and burn. as pestilent heresies, yet without caus. much light to be spread, the schism went off soon aft. his d. wh. was 17 Oct. 1721. A sec. w. Mary Ransford cause him more trouble than the first. JOHN, Boston, of whose est. admin. was giv. 25 Apr. 1672, to his wid. Elizabeth JOHN, Weymouth, perhaps s. of John of the same, m. 8 Feb. 1663, Mary Bates, had Mary, b. 3 Apr. 1664; Lydia, 1 Mar. 1666; Experience, 29 Nov. 1667; and Hannah, 23 July 1670; was freem. 1671 JOHN, Salem, m. 29 Oct. 1674, Elizabeth d. perhaps of Daniel Baxter, was, in 1681, a glazier. *JOHN, Bristol, was rep. 1689. JOHN, Ipswich, eldest s. of Presid. John, was ord. 12 Oct. 1692, as collea, with his uncle Hubbard, m. 4 Mar. 1691, Martha, d. of William Whittingham, had John, b. 19 Jan. 1692, H. C. 1711, min. of Kittery; Martha, 20 Nov. 1694; Mary; William, 19 June 1699; Nathaniel, 22 Sept. 1701, H. C. 1721, min. of Ipswich, collea. with his f.; Richard, 2 Dec. 1703; Elizabeth 1705 d. young; Daniel and Elizabeth tw. 28 July 1707, of wh. Daniel was H. C. 1725, min. of Exeter; and Samuel, 31 Aug. 1709, H. C. 1725. He d. 28 Dec. 1745, and his wid. d. 9 Mar. 1759. JONATHAN, Huntington, L. I. adm. freem. of Conn. 1664. 

JONATHAN, perhaps of Westerly bef. 1680, m. Naomi, d. of Robert Burdick. JONATHAN, New London, youngest s. of James the first, d. 1697, leav. large fam. but only s. Jonathan. JOSEPH, Plymouth, s. of Thomas, brot. by his f. in the Mayflower, 1620, had two sh. in the div. of lds. 1624, prob. on acco. of his f. wh. d. in the first six mos. but in the div. of cattle [[vol. 3, p. 564]] had single sh. in the comp. with Gov. Bradford, liv. at Duxbury, there had Sarah, b. 6 Aug. 1633, d. soon; Joseph, 19 July 1635; Thomas, 29 Mar. bapt. 6 May 1638; Elizabeth 29 Sept. 1639; John, 3 Apr. 1642; Mary, 22 Sept. 1644; James, 18 Oct. 1648; these six liv. says Bradford, in 1650; and Hannah, 8 Aug. 1652; was some time at Sandwich, but as early as 1655 at Eastham, was lieut. and d. at E. 1678. Eliz m. 9 Jan. 1660, Jonathan Higgins. Joseph, Eastham, s. of the preced. m. 4 Apr. 1660, or Feb. 1661, as in Geneal. Reg. VI. 235, is said, tho. I think with mistake of the mo. by its numeral, 2, wh. in ano. and higher auth. Coll. Rec. foll. by Geneal, Reg. III. 379, stands 4 Apr. 1660, Susanna, d. of Stephen Deane, had Joseph, perhaps posthum. for the f. d. 27 Dec. or Jan. foll. by injury in a fall. His wid. m. 28 oct. 1663, Stephen Snow. 

JOSEPH, Salem, d. a. 1668. JOSEPH, Boston, s. Perhaps of Simon, by w. Elizabeth had Susanna, b. 4 Dec. 1688. JOSEPH, New London, sec. s. of James the first, d. 1697, leav. large fam. JOSHUA, Boston, m. 12 Oct. 1653, Ann. Fisen, if that be not an impossib. name, had Joshua, b. 20 Feb. 1655, but the rec. notes his d. on 15 of that mo. NATHANIEL, Ipswich, sec. s. of Rev. John of Dedham, co. Essex, Eng. fondly report. in mod. times with very little, or rather no probabil. to be descend. of the first martyr in Queen Mary's day, was b. a. 1589 at Haverhill, where his f. was then min. bred at Cambridge Univ. where he was matric. of Emmanuel, 1614, had his deg. 1617 and 21, first preach. at Bocking in Essex, next at Assington in Sufflk. where were Gurdon and other purit. gentry, the Bp. of the diocese, after fill. by Wren, the puritan-disturber, having comforta. respect. him five yrs. He m. Margaret, d. of Robert Crane, a gent. with good est. of Coggeshall, Co. Essex, at whose ho. perhaps, the eldest ch. John was b. Jan. 1631, H. C. 1649; had also Nathaniel, b. at Assington, 30 Sept. 1632; Samuel, 16 Jan. 1635; Timothy, 9 Nov. 1638, at Ipswich; and Ezekiel, H. C. 1659; beside Margaret, wh. was, no doubt, b. in Eng. and here m. William Hubbard, the Hist. he came from London to Boston, arr. Nov. 1636, and on 20 Feb. 1638 was ord. as collea. with Norton, to succeed Nathaniel Ward, wh. strange, gave up his profession; was freem. 23 May 1639, tho. the magistr. at I. had authority to adm. him 6 Sept. preced. and d. 3 July 1655, a century after the faggot's blaze in Smithfield, and about a hundred yrs. bef. the earliest surmise of the derivat. from the hero of it, of the num. and honorable families here of the same name. His will, numcup. was pro. 26 Sept. in the hand-writ. of Ezekiel Cheever, first master of the gram. sch. at I. He had carefully kept a Diary, but was wise eno. to see it burned bef. his d. This he, or his kinsman, Ezekiel, were descent. of the celebr. Smithfield martyr, might seem to be justif. by the note of Hutch. I 190, wh. cites Hubbard, tho. the earliest [[vol. 3, p. 565]] hist. says nothing like it. Into such carelessness Hutch. does not oft. fall. Hubbard, wh. m. the only d. of this Nathaniel, clearly eno. calls him s. of Rev. John of Dedham, wh. he honarab. marks as the famous preach. as if "it might be honor eno. to say" of Nathaniel, "that he was the s. of Mr. John," "yet heir of a double portion of his spirit, and worthy to have transmit. more honor to his posterity than he received from those bef. him by reason of his emin. learning, singular piety, holy zeal, with other ministerial abilities." See Hubbard, 554. Surely the hist. could not intend a slur upon the learning, piety, holy zeal, or minist. abilities of him wh. glorified his master in the martyr's fire; and the irresistib. inference is, that he, tho. so intimately related to Nathaniel, had never heard of his descent from the protomartyr of Queen Mary. Tho. he is wholly silent as to John's progenit. hardly can it seem possible that our Ispwich Hist. should not have stated the propagat. of the martyr's seed on our side of the water, when hims. m. (as idly report.) a gr.d. and his sis. (both nam. Margaret), m. Ezekiel, a gr.s. It would have been equally sure to be ment. by him, if these two ms. had been of the fourth or fifth generat. no less than of the third as assert. Neither Johnson, who expends verse upon both of the min. of Ipswich and Rowley, then liv. nor the more judicious and equally affectionate contempor. annalist, Gov. Winth, nor garrulous Mather in his Magn. all-gathering, especial. of doubtful reports, nor Ch. J. Sewall, jealous for the honor of puritans, nor Prince, the pattern of accuracy in minute detail, hint at any such glorious ancest. more than Hubbard. I presume the tradit. has no older origin. that Hutchinson's day; and perhaps he got it, as may have also Dr. Eliot, from their common friend, Rev. Daniel of Littleton, whose f. Daniel was perhaps so nam. out of rever. to Maj.-Gen. Daniel Dennison, f. of this mo. whose only d. she was, rather than of Daniel, s. of the martyr of Smithfield, whose memory puritans would gladly forget, as he was a courtier, and did not keep the godly simplicity of the sufferer. My admirable friend, the late Dr. Eliot, who in his Biog. Dict. gave currency to the tradit. as if it were authentic, had assist. he tells us, the Rev. Daniel, some mos. in his pulpit; and the gr.st. at L. over the clerg. that d. Nov. 1782, shows now the sleeper there accept. the honor, But the four generat. of silence on our side of the ocean, add. to the prior eighty yrs. stillness of the mother country, forbid me to entertain any respect for the report first heard in the fifth age of our own history. All the evidence is indeed of a negative charact. but so many facts are ascertain. quite inconsist. with the assumpt. founded on the mod. tradit. that it seems a far safer conclus, maybe dr. than if half a dozen pieces of positive testim . were laid for its substratum. From the silence of Giles Firmin, wh. had liv. at our Ipswich under the preaching of Nathaniel Rogers, and [[vol. 3, p. 566]] wh. tells how his gr.mo. bec. w. of famous Richard Rogers, author of the seven treaties, and father of our Ezekiel, tho. he is very copious in acco. of both Richard and Dedham John, yet being wholly silent a. the witness of Smithfield fire, my friend, Charles Deane, the scrupulous antiquary at Cambridge, is strongly inclined to disbelieve, that either of these prominent Essex divines could be gr.s. much less own s. of the martyr. His valua. argument on the assum. point of genealogy may be seen in the Cambridge Chronicle of 3 Jan. 1850. Resort is had by the diligent writer in Geneal, Reg. V. 101, to the "identical bible wh. belong. to the protomartyr, print. in 1649," "own. by a descend. at Lunenburg" That volume had been oft. and once or twice with severest, not unaid. scutiny, examin. by me. It may be premised, that no English bible, print. in 1549, by Carwood and Jugge, printers of our Lunenburg exemplar, after diligent search for one hundred yrs. had been discovered; and all competent judges are now agreed, that the opinion formerly thrown out, as to such an edit. is without support But the Lunenburg copy is very clearly ascertain. to be of the yr. 1651, the earliest Eng. bible, indeed, of Elizabeth's reign, yet six yrs. after Rogers was burned at Smithfield. Infallible proof of this was furnish. by Mr. Stevens of London, and another mod. disting. biblic. bibliograph. 

George Offer of London, on a part of the volume sent from this country; and by collation, in many hours by myself, with a sheet of the bible of 1651, sent hither from London, by Mr. O. to his friend George Livermore, Esq. of Cambridge, the perfect. identity is exhibit. in the printer's monogram, the pictures, and the minutest parts of single words, and letters, in the text, correct as well as erroneous. So that this relic, however valua. in itself, affords no prop to the claim of descent from him, any more than it does to the wild tradit. that the noble martyr held this same precious copy in his hand, when suffering at the stake. In proof of the fable, Geneal, Reg. III. 373, truly says the vol. "is much burnt,?" and it might have add. that it better would have pleased the partakers of the triumph to have burned the book instead of the man. But of the burnt part, wh. very slightly affect. the print. Queen Elizabeth in her service book of 1661, suffers most, as I testify. Many of us know of volumes, burnt in part, that never were in the hands of martyrs in Smithfield. From every long protract, inquiry, in order to sustain or reverse my first express of better. belief in the descent of our N. E. posterity of Nataniel Rogers, the closest approach to any exact relation with the martyr amounts only to this: the f. of Rev. William Jenkin of London, wh. was min. of Sudbury, when William was b. 1612, and of course the predecess. of our John Wilson was gr.s. of a d. of the sufferer of 1555, and he had stud. under the old puritan, Richard Rogers of Wethersfield. See Palmer's Non-Conform. Mem. [[vol. 3, p. 567]]

Vol. I. Slight indeed, and very remote will his relationship appear; but no nearer connex, can be found, I think, betwe. any of our innumeraable Rogerses and the glorious suffer. John, the editor of Tyndall's bible. Encouragem. to adhere to the illusion, against the strong array of Mr. Deane's logic, was felt by some of the supporters of tradit. for the holy martyr's descent, on hearing that Mr. Hunter of London was slow in deciding adverse to the claim. No judgment, on such a point, could outweigh his. He says in a letter to me. Oct. 1866, "The subject has been so long absent from my mind, that I really do not now understand, how the question rests at present, or even what I may have written about it" -- "I know nothing but what I learned from America; and, on the other hand, I never saw in English docum. any evid. of the descent wh. they claim, wh. may, for any thing I kn. be correct, tho. I shd. like to see the evid. on wh. it rests. Something beyond tradit. is now demand. in all claims to ancestr. honors." 

Only will I add that this tradit. is very modern. In the mass of MS. gather. by Candler to illustr. the Puritan Hist. of Eng. tho. he is so copious upon the E. counties' confessors, no reference to the desc. of John of D. was perceiv. by Hunter, and this since the tradit. was first ment. within twenty yrs. The name was most widely diffus. in Eng. Perhaps there were near a hundred min. in the days of Elizabeth nam. Rogers, of wh. one or more may well have been s. of the proto-martyr of the preced. reign. In the Register of the single diocese of Salisbury by Sir Thomas Phillips, from 1297, to 1810, wh. he gave me, are rec. the institutions of Nicholas R. 1565; of Ambrose R. 1569; and of John R. 1582. So natural is it to infer that the blood of the sufferer should in the sec. and third generat. be blessed, that the writer of a Memoir of the fam. of Rev. Nathaniel, claiming to be a descend. in Geneal. Reg. V. 105, most copiously carried out, makes his f. John of Dedham, to be gr.s. of the martyr, and a student so diligent as Dr. Allen, in the Sec. Ed. of his Biog. Dict. made even Nathaniel the gr.s. whereas from the monum. inscript. on John, the Dedham min. we learn that he was not b. bef. 1571 or 2, 16 or 17 yrs. after the solemn scene of his supposed f's martyrd. in the midst of London. In his third Ed. however, the f. of Nathaniel is made gr.s. of Smithfield John. No tradit. that the f. of Nathaniel was descend. of the hero of 1555, had ever reached his successor at the altar, or the hearers in Dedham, bef. it was told by me in 1842. See 3 Mass. Hist. Coll. VIII. 309. Good acco. it not to be any where found of the ten ch. male and fem. of the noble sufferer at Smithfield, exc. Daniel, ment. by Fox, the martyrolog. He got promotion at Court, under patronage of some civilian of Elizabeth and may hardly have encourag. the puritan tendency of any relative. See Hunter's Suffolk Emigr. 3 Mass. Histo. Coll. X. 165. There was a [[vol. 3, p. 568]]

John R. in the ch. one generat. later than Nathaniel's f. blessed John of Dedham, so strong a purit. as to give offence to Cromwell, wh. imprison, him at Lambeth, and aft. at Windsor; but the religion of the great soldier partook little of the fierce sincerity of Queen Mary, and he was too sagacious, if not humane, to put the confessor to death. See Brooks Lives III. 326. One John R. of our own days was min. at Rendham, in Co. Suffk. not long since and may still be.

November 2000

You are the 5997th Visitor to this USGenNet Safe-Site™ Since March 9, 2001. 99,000 visitors since before this counter was installed.

Html by Warren Wetmore and Debbie

[Register Index][AHGP][Blackwell's New England Books Project]