“Samuel Gilbert, aged sixty-two years, testifieth and saith: That at the time when John Rogers, late of New London, deceased, was a prisoner several years at Hartford, I did at the same time keep a public house of entertainment near the prison, and was well knowing to the concerns of the said Rogers all the time of his imprisonment, and I do farther testify that New London meeting-house was burnt at the time while he was a prisoner in said prison, but no part of his imprisonment was upon that account. SAMUEL GILBERT, October, 1725.” Thus it plainly appears that this affirmation concerning New London meeting-house is a positive falsehood. He (Pratt) further says that “Rogers held downright that man had no soul at all, and that though he used the term, yet intended by it either the natural life, or else the natural faculties, which he attributed to the body, and held that they died with it, even as it is with a dog.” In answer to this notorious falsehood charged upon John Rogers, I shall boldly appeal to all mankind who had conversation with him in his lifetime; for that they well knew it to be utterly false: and for the satisfaction of such as had not acquaintance with him, I shall refer them to his books, and particularly in this point to his “Exposition on the Revelations,” beginning at page 232, where he largely sets forth the Resurrection of the Body, both of the just and unjust, and of the eternal judgment which God shall then pass upon all, both small and great. All which sufficiently proves Peter Pratt guilty of slandering and belying a dead man, a crime generally abhorred by all sober people; and so shall pass to his 3d chapter, judging that by these few remarks which have been taken, the reader may plainly see that the account he pretends to give of John Roger’s principles is so false and self-contradictory that it deserves no answer at all, and that it was great folly in Peter Pratt so to expose himself as to pretend to give an account of John Roger’s principles in such a false manner; since John Rogers himself has largely published his own principles in print, which books are plenty, and will fully satisfy every one that desires satisfaction in that matter of what I have here asserted. In page 48 he (Pratt) tells the reader as follows: “But John Rogers held three ordinances of religious use; viz., Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and imposition of hands.” Again, “that all worship is in the heart only, and there are no external forms.” Here the reader may observe that, first, he owns that Rogers held three external ordinances, viz., Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and imposition of hands; and in the very next words forgets himself and tells the reader that Rogers held all worship to be in the heart only, and that there were no external forms. See how plainly he contradicts himself.