2. For saying, concerning a wheelbarrow thou broughtest into the meeting house about a week or fortnight before, that Christ drove the wheelbarrow—an impious belying of Christ, accusing him to be the author of sin and was on the Sabbath day. 3. Thou art presented for disturbing the congregation of N. London on the Lord’s day, when they were in the public worship of God. 4. Also for saying in court that thou did’st nothing and had said nothing but what thy Lord and Master sent thee to doe etc.[77] which expressions were spoken in answer to the governor, who reproved thee for disturbing God’s people in his day and worship. Footnote 77: The “&c.” is of the record. The evidence against the prisoner in regard to these matters is given by Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, Daniel Wetherell and John Christophers, and by “an old man in New London prison,” who testifies that he heard John Rogers say “that he was in Christ and just and holy, and ministers would carry people to the devil.” Stated in record that John Rogers owned to saying he was in Christ, but denied the rest of the statement by the old man. He also denied that he said Christ drove the wheelbarrow into the church. Messrs. Saltonstall, Christophers and Wetherell testify that (“at Mr. Thomas Young’s”) they saw John Rogers lay his hand on his breast, and heard him say: “This is the humane body of Christ;” they also heard him say in a “laughing,” or “as they thought in a flouting way,” “brother Jesus and brother Paul.” Owned in court by John Rogers “that he said his body was Christ’s” (note this exact agreement with his son’s statement, Part I, Chapter II), also that he used the term brother in regard to Christ and Paul. The opinions of four ministers are taken as to the blasphemous nature of said expressions. The names of these ministers are “Samuel Stow, Moses Noyes, Timothy Woodbridge and Caleb Watson.” They judge that the expression, “This is the humane body of Christ,” has a high blasphemous reflection. The saying “brother Jesus is also a presumptuous expression, in the manner of his saying it” (viz., as rendered by Gurdon Saltonstall). “The saying that Christ drove the wheelbarrow is an impious belying of Christ” (regardless of the prisoner’s denial of having made any such statement). “The reflections on our worship are a slanderous charge against the generation of the righteous, and heretical and impious.”[78] They also “apprehend that in every one of the expressions evidenced against him there is a high and abominable profanation of the name of Christ.” Footnote 78: Although the “Proclamation” put out at the prison window appears (by absence on the court records) not to have figured in open court, it was evidently in the minds of these priestly judges. Verdict, guilty. Sentence:—