After the above conclusion on the part of John Rogers and his Society, the Rogerenes begin to hold their meetings on the first day of the week, in conformity with the common custom. Yet, much as they might enjoy making this a day of entire rest, were there not an “idolatrous” law declaring that sacred which was not so declared in the Scriptures, they still consider it their duty to bear sufficient witness against the assumption of its sanctity. While the Rogerenes were preaching New Testament doctrines antagonistic to the state church, on Saturday, when the rest of the world were busy with secular affairs, not many outsiders would be likely to attend their meetings; but now that these doctrines are preached and taught on Sunday, in public meetings of the Rogerenes,[102] many more are likely to attend these services, and so become interested in this departure, despite the fine that might be risked by such attendance. Yet there are no indications that any new measures have been adopted, on account of this change on the part of the Rogerenes. They are at least ceasing labor for that portion of the day devoted to religious services, which may possibly appear a hopeful indication, to the view of the ecclesiastical party. At all events, by the silence of the court records and the testimony of John Bolles, the Rogerenes are not now being persecuted as formerly, and we shall find these peaceful conditions existing for some years to come. Footnote 102: Their services for preaching and expounding were always public; their (evening) meetings for prayer and praise were for believers, after the manner of the early church. CHAPTER VII. 1707. June 4, of this year, a complaint is made by Samuel Beebe against John Rogers, as executor of his father’s estate, for detaining from Samuel Beebe three cows, which, by the codicil of the will, were to be given to his wife Elizabeth after the death of her mother. The cows are evidently given up to him, since nothing further concerning them appears on the court records. The peculiarity about this complaint is that, while claiming what is given to his wife under the codicil, he is still (as will be seen) firmly adhering to the irregular proceeding of the widow in 1692, which ignores the codicil to the extent of attempting a distribution of the movables—and also a portion of the residue of land—in a manner entirely different from that directed by the testator in this codicil. The determination of Samuel Beebe to, if possible, prevent the executor from carrying out the full intent of the testator is sufficient to account not only for the detention of the cows, but for the much longer delay made by the executors, John and Bathsheba, in attempting to make the final division indicated by the codicil, a preliminary to which division would be their taking for themselves all of the household goods.[103] Footnote 103: