daughters marry sons of members of the Congregational church (New London and elsewhere), of high standing and ample means. Footnote 153: Since John Rogers resided as a pastor on the Great Neck from 1675 to 1699 he had undoubtedly a following of that locality. Footnote 154: Her first child was baptized in the Congregational church, but the other children do not appear on the Congregational church records, by which it may be judged that she was brought over to her husband’s views in this particular. The sons of John Bolles have not all taken wives from among the Rogerenes, but are less allied to those of Congregational persuasion; outside of their own sect they have most favored Baptist women. The second wife of John Rogers, 2d, appears not to have been a Rogerene before marriage, and the same may be said of the second wife of John Bolles. If such facts are true of the chief leaders and their children, we may easily judge of the alliances of their followers with persons of other denominations, in this comparatively quiet interval. The above particulars are important as showing the social status of the leading New London Rogerenes in the middle of the eighteenth century, and proving that, although holding strictly to their own opinions and customs, they are not only accounted honorable and esteemed members of the community, but are so liberally inclined as to be in a large degree connected with liberal members of other sects. John Rogers, 2d, has said: “I abhor the abusing of any sect.”—_Answer to Peter Pratt._ It appears likely that he also abhors the isolation of any sect, believing men and women can differ on certain religious points, and yet be friends and even partners for life. This ready association of the New London Rogerenes with friendly people of other denominations, is but one of many evidences that the chief contention of these people has not been regarding minor matters of church government and customs, nor even so much in regard to baptism and hireling ministers; but that the great struggle, from first to last, has been for religious liberty; in asserting which liberty they must oppose those who institute, enforce or uphold laws inimical to free expression of religious belief, or individual liberty in the form of worship. Having the high ground of apostolic doctrines and usages upon which to found a strong opposition to ecclesiastical tyranny, they have fought the good fight upon that sacred foundation.