The singularly false and indecent statements made by Peter Pratt—in regard to the divorce of John Rogers and the marriage to Mary Ransford—and his exaggerated description of the scene in the court-room, form almost the entire portion of the account of the Rogerenes contained in Trumbull’s “History of Connecticut,” which is the standard history (first published, 1818) from which, as has been said, later historians have derived their ideas and representations in regard to this sect. Of the many lesser aspersions cast by Peter Pratt upon the character and teachings of John Rogers, one of the most astonishing (seeing that Peter Pratt himself refutes it) is to the effect that John Rogers held that “a man dies even as a dog.” In another place he says John Rogers “held both to the resurrection and the day of judgment, although doubted whether the body to be raised would be the same that fell, yet owned it would have the same consciousness.” The author guilty of the above (and many another) self-contradiction, says of the writings of John Rogers: “For that they are so perplexed and ambiguous, that he that will attend the rules of reason and speech can prove scarcely anything of the chief articles of his faith by his books.” Careful perusal of the many extant writings of John Rogers will prove to any candid person that they are written in the clearest manner, having in them nothing which cannot be understood by the most ordinary reader. Peter Pratt, being unable to quote from these writings anything that could substantiate his statements concerning them, had need to manufacture some excuse for such omission of evidence. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not wholly impossible, to find another book from which historians have condescended to quote which contains so many contradictions in itself, so many utterly and needlessly vulgar expressions, and so many easily proven falsehoods, as does this calumnious work of Peter Pratt. The favor it received in ecclesiastical quarters is proof that there was almost no device, however underhanded, of which the enemies of the Rogerenes would not stoop to avail themselves in branding this daring opponent of ecclesiastical rule. Yet Peter Pratt’s baldly dishonest account is not the only source of Rogerene calumny. Backus, among others, in his “History of the Baptists,” makes the statement that the Rogerenes were a sect whose practice it was to take work into meeting-houses. The Rogerenes were a sect nearly a century before 1764, when they first took work into a meeting-house, and have been a sect more than one hundred years since 1766, when they ceased to take work into a meeting-house, making in reality less than two years, of their more than two hundred years of existence, in which they (their women), in defence of their Society, took work into a meeting-house.