d.27 Jul 1727 Lyme, New London, Connecticut, United States
m. 16 Oct 1646
Facts and Events
Dolphs and De Wolffs, by Carol S. Maginnis says she is the daughter of Mathew Griswold, divorced wife of John Rogers and widow of Peter Pratt.
Mathew Griswold, born 1597 in England, died September 27, 1698 Saybrook, Middlesex, Conn, is her father. Anna Wolcott, born 1620-1655 is her mother.
From Family Histories and genealogies... by Edward Salisbury
Matthew and Anna (Wolcott) Griswold had five children, named in the following order in a family record: Sarah, Matthew, John, Elizabeth, Anna. But neither the family papers nor the existing public record give us their birthdays, excepting that of Matthew, who was born in 1653... if Elizabeth was the second child born after Matthew, her birth could not have occurred before 1655, whereas she was first married in 1670 - which is quite improbable. Accordingly, we shall assume...
1. Elizabeth, born, according to corrected order of names, not later than 1652, and very likely, from the date of her first marriage (early marriages being then usual), in that year; who married: first, October 17, 1670, John Rogers of New London, Connecticut; secondly, August 5, 1679, Peter Pratt; and, thirdly, soon after 1688, Matthew Beckwith...
In 1674, John Rogers, her first husband, departed from the established orthodoxy of the New England churches, by embracing the doctrines of the Seventh Day Baptists; and having adopted, later, "certain peculiar notions of his own," though still essentially orthodox as respects the fundamental faith of his time, became the founder of a new sect, called after him Rogerenes, Rogerene Quakers, or Rogerene Baptists. Maintaining "obedience to the civil government except in matters of conscience and religion," he denounced, "as unscriptural, all interference of the civil power in the worship of God." It seemed proper to give here these particulars with regard to Roger's views, because they were made the ground of a petition by his wife for a divorce, in May 1675, which was granted by the General Court in October of the next year, and was followed in 1677 by another, also granted, for the custody of her children, her late husband "being so hettridox in his opinion and practice." The whole affair reminds us of other instances, more conspicuous in history, of the narrowness manifested by fathers of New England towards any deviations from established belief; and of their distrust of individual conscience as a sufficient rule of religious life, without the interference of civil authority. There is no reason to believe that the heterodoxy "in practice" referred to in the wife's last petition to the Court, was anything else than a non-conformity akin to that for the sake of which the shores of their "dear old England" had been left behind, forever, by so many of the very men who forgot to tolerate it, themselves, in their new western homes. Of course, like all persecuted, especially religious parties, the Rogerenes counted, gloried in, and profited by, distresses. John Rogers always claimed that the Court had taken his wife away from him without reason. Both of his children eventually sympathized with their father, and lived with him.
Don't perpetuate an unfounded "accusation" laid out by John's step-son, from so many years ago. Records show the divorce was granted because of the religious views only and no accusation [of adultery] was ever made by John's wife. John was considered heridox in his religious views, and this as sole reason for the divorce is also supported in a book called "The Rogerenes, Some Hitherto Unpublished.... ". John's son John was deeply disturbed by the allegations of adultery (which only came up after John's death, and to which he himself could not respond to.) Younger John took statements from long time neighbors, etc. which serve to support the piety of and clear his father's name.
Rogerenes were not later known as 7th Day Baptists or Adventists. My best description of the Rogerenes would be to define them as drummers to their own beat. John had considered becoming a 7th Day (already established), which was tolerated well and growing in Rhode Island. The tenets of the 7th Day-ers more closely matched those of the later formed Rogerenes than any other religion at that time. The Rogerenes were also mistakenly called Quakers because some of the Quaker beliefs were embraced by them as well.
John and his family were the biggest financial supporters of the Congregational church in New London (not by choice but because an automatic percentage was apportioned from one's wages to support the accepted church of New London.) Yet he was supposed to live by the Congregationalist views which in his estimation did not always follow what was written in the Bible. His constant fines, imprisonment, etc. were unbearable to Elizabeth, especially (by all accounts I have read) with her mother's constant interference. John's mother in law pressured her to leave him for some time prior to the divorce. So there is another 2 + 2 possibility... Also keep in mind, many servants took on the name of the family they were indentured to.
From Savage's Genealogical Dictionary
GRISWOLD, MATTHEW, Saybrook, younger br[other]. of Edward, and perhaps of first Francis, came from Warwicksh[ire]. Kenilworth being his native place, and possib[ly]. with Rev. Ephraim Huit, m[arried]. Ann, d[aughter]. of first Henry Wolcott, had two s[ons]. and three d[aughter]s. but the dates of b[irth]. are unkn[own]. except that Matthew, perhaps not the eldest, was b[orn]. 1653; was rep[resentative]. of S[aybrook]. often, and of Lyme after the div[ision]. of the old town; call[ed]. hims[elf]. 66 yrs. old in 1684, and d[ied]. Jan. 1699; his wid[ow]. then 79. His s[on]. John d[ied]. young; the d[aughter]s. all m[arried]. Elizabeth 17 Oct. 1670 to John Rogers of New London, the found[er]. of the sect of Rogerenes; and being 12 Oct. 1676 divorc[ed]. from him m[arried]. 5 Aug. 1679, Peter Pratt, wh[o]. d[ied]. 1688, and she had in 1694, third h[usband]. Matthew Beckwith, and bore ch[ildren]. to ea[ch], and d[ied]. July 1727; Ann m[arried]. 2 Sept. 1674, Abraham Brunson of Farmington; and Sarah m[arried]. capt[ain]. Thomas Colton of Springfield.
WOLCOTT, WALCOTT, or WOOLCOT, HENRY, Dorchester 1630, was b[orn]. a[bout]. 1578, in the S[outh]. part of Somerset sh[ire]. at or near Wellington, not far from the edge of Devonsh[ire]. and thus, prob[ably]. gain[ed]. sympathy with the puritans of the W. who project[ed]. the voyage of the Mary and John in Mar[ch]. of that y[ea]r. He was honor[ed]. with a commiss[ion]. from the crown, as a jutice bef[ore]. leav[ing]. home, as tradit[ion]. tells, and had good landed est[ate]. as perhaps may be infer[ed]. from a very valua[ble]. letter of his br[other]. John, 15 Apr. 1639, print[ed]. in Geneal. Reg. II. 373. He desir. adm[inistration]. as freem[an]. 19 Oct. 1630, and was sw[orn]. 1 Apr. 1634. His w[ife]. Elizabeth Saunders, m[arried]. a[bout]. 1607, was his compan[ion]. in the traverse of the wilderness to plant the first town, nam[ed]. Dorchester, but soon aft[er]. Windsor, on the Conn. in Oct. 1635, and outliv[ed]. him but few w[ee]ks. Their ch[ildren]. Henry, b[orn]. a[bout]. 1610; George; Christopher; Ann, b[orn]. a[bout]. 1620; Simon, 1625; and Mary; were all bro[ugh]t. from Eng[land]. He is the first officer. nam[ed]. in the rec[ords]. of Conn. p. 1, chos[en]. 26 Apr. 1636, constable, and in Apr. 1643 Assist[ant]. till his d[eath]. was largely engag[ed]. in business, and d[ied]. 30 May 1655. No will is preserv[ed]. His wid[ow]. d[ied]. 7 or 17 July foll[owing]. aged 73, Ann m[arried]. Matthew Griswold; and Mary m[arried]. 25 June 1646, Job Drake. Of Christopher notice is never seen, but that he d[ied]. 7 Sept. 1662.
From Family Histories and genealogies... by Edward Salisbury
... In accordance with these views, believing that the emigrants Edward and Matthew Griswold belonged to the landed gentry of England, we do not hesitate to place the arms of the ancient family of Greswold of Warwickshire...