Satan at Noon, Article
The eighth Article
That he knew nothing to the contrary, but that a man might keep company with more then one woman, being taxed for keeping carnall company in London.
This witneſſe alſo was not called. the Commiſſioners being abundantly ſatisfied and tyred out, but upon the fight of the Drs book he hath witneſſed it under his own hand, as you ſhall ſee.To which we may joyn another of the third charge. viz.
That Marriage was the way of beasts, as alſo that Francis Knight of Wallingford diſcourſing with ſome of Blewbery that uſe to Dr Pordages, they ſpeak very much againſt the lawfullneſſe of marriage, he wondring at it, asked them whence they now came, they anſwered we came juſt now from the Dr from Bradfield.
We ſhall likewiſe joyn in this place ſeverall other articles contained in the ſaid third charge, preferred by ſome of the pariſh. viz.
That Dr Pordage about eight years paſt did carry Mrs Flavell behind him on horſeback on the road to London, and about Hounſlow did enquire for a private houſe, and was directed to one Goodman Loughton a ſmith, who lives in Heſſen pariſh halfe a mile out of the road between Hounſlow and Branford: and when he came, asked if his friend behind him being ſick might have entertainment: 'twas anſwered yes: then the Dr left her there; Mrs Flavell in in a ſhort time fell in travell, but did never own being with child till ſhe was in travell, and then deſired no company might be called in, yet the good woman of the houſe, Goodman Loaders wife, called in three or four, and Mrs Flavell was then brought to bed of a daughter, having then no huſband that the world knew of, Mr Flavell being dead.
Thirdly, That Dr Pordage came to that houſe and chriſtned that child, and named it Hannah, and the Dr came often to viſite her there, and alwayes alone by himſelf.
Fourthly, That the child being put to nurſe in the ſame pariſh, the Dr removed Mrs Flavell to Kenſington, and paid the Smith for her being at his houſe. That a little while after, the nurſe went to Kenſington, to enquire for Mrs Flavell to pay her ſome mony, but ſhe was removed, and the nurſe ſaying ſhe left a child with her, the company ſmiled, and ſaid they thought ſhe was ſuch a woman, after this the nurſes husband wrote a letter to the Dr, to Bradfield, that he was twenty weeks pay behind and could not forbear, whereupon he vvas paid, and ſhortly after ſent for the child avvay from nurſe.
Fifthly, That a little vvhile after, this Mrs Flavell came again to the Drs family, and a little child called Hannah, it vvas alſo brought thither, and Mrs Flavell took the care of it ever ſince, and Mrs Flavell being by neighbours asked vvhoſe child it was, ſaid, a dear friend of hers, but none could ever hear in the houſe vvhoſe child it vvas, and ſome telling Mrs Flavell that the child vvas ſo like her, that they ſhould take it to be hers, had ſhe not ſaid the contrary, ſhe anſvvered, as before, it vvas a dear friends of hers, but never named vvhoſe.
Sixthly, That this child vvho vvas called Hannah, the laſt ſummer they changed her name and called her Ruth: they have alſo changed all their names, the Dr is called Father Abraham, his vvife is alſo called Deborah, and old goodvvife Pocock is called Rahab, and ſo the reſt.
Seventhly, That Goodman Loughton's ſon being a ſouldier, ſavv Mrs Flavell in Bradfield ſtreet, and ſpake to her, but ſhe took no notice of it, aftervvards Mrs Flavell coming to his fathers houſe, his mother in diſcourſe asked vvhether ſhe lived at Bradfield, Mrs Flavell ſaid ſhe knevv no ſuch place; I vvill call my ſon in vvho ſavv you there: Mrs Flavell ſaid people vvere given to lying, and vvould not have him called, and preſently called for her horſe and vvent avvay, and though before ſhe had reſolved to ſtay all night, and never ſince vvas there, except ſince the Dr hath bin queſtioned.
The Drs anſwers follow viz.
To the firſt.
I never kept ſcandalous company vvith any vvoman, in London, neither vvas I ever taxed for any ſuch thing, except one by Mrs Grip, vvho I believe is the vvitneſſe againſt me, and that upon this occaſion,
At the time I had my former conference with her, the heat of paſſion being over, ſhe told me I was alſo taxed for keeping carnall company with a woman in London, I replyed I am a man born to all manner of ſuffering, and told her ſhe ſaw and knew the manner of my converſation, asking her whether ſhe believed it, and ſhe anſwered no truly, and then I ſolemnly proteſted the contrary, and this is all the taxing I ever had from any one, at which time, I was earneſt with Mrs Grip to diſcover to me from whom ſhe heard it, but ſhe put me off, telling me ſhe did not believe it, and that ſhe would tell me ſome other time, but from that long diſcourſe I had with her, fearing ſhe was deeply tinctured with the principles of Antinomianiſme, and not knowing whether ſhe might not be tainted with ſome notions of Rantiſme, which at that time were every where frequently diſcourſed of, I took this occaſion to try her, telling her (as near as I remember) that there were ſome that affirmed, they knew nothing to the contrary, but that a man might company with more then one woman, but to ſpeak the truth ſhe let it fall without ſeeming to approve of any ſuch thing. This I ſolemnly a vow to be the truth, as near as I can remember, and I believe Mrs Grip dare not ſwear that I mentioned any ſuch th…ng, as my judgement, or produced one Scripture or argument to defend it, I profeſſe to the whole world in the preſence of that eye that ſeeth through all hearts, that all ſuch looſe principles which turn the grace of God into wantonneſſe, and that run oppoſite to the lawes, morality, civility, modeſty, and ſobriety, or that any way indulge wantonneſſe, and laſciviouſneſſe, are as inconſiſtent with my principles, as heaven and hell, light and darkneſſe, are oppoſite one to another, which will one day clearly appear to the world what ever I am now thought of.
To the ſecond viz.
That marriage is the way of beaſts, the Dr gives no particular anſwer.
To that of Mr Knight.
That ſome of Blewbery that ſpake againſt marriage, ſaid they came from my houſe.
I hope I have enough to do to anſwer for my ſelf, what needs the aſſertions of others be alledged as articles againſt me, they ſpake againſt marriage, having lately been at my houſe, therefore I muſt be guilty of it, ſurely this conſequence is neither according to naturall, artificiall, or divine reaſon.
The anſwer to the articles preferred againſt the Dr by ſome of the pariſh, followeth.
Now I come to the articles exhibited againſt me by ſome of Bradfield pariſh, and as to thoſe which concern Mrs Flavell.
I ſhall anſwer. Firſt, Somewhat in generall, touching their import and nature.
Secondly, By way of negation.
Thirdly, By way of acknowledgement.
This charge of articles hath no legall reference of charge at all to me, but is merely ſcandalous, importing but a libell, nothing of fact, really criminous, being laid to my charge, which will more clearly appear, When the erroneous circumſtances of it are detected, by which alſo the ſubtilty, and envy of my adverſaries will be diſcovered, who poſitively alledge nothing againſt me, that may bear an action of damage at the Common Law, by which they might ſuffer for their injurious dealing, yet by plauſible prevaricating circumſtances would ſeem to make me highly criminous and guilty.
Tis confeſſed that the pariſh Were deceived in the time, and ſome other circumstances, the Dr makes a great boaſt to no purpoſe, read the proof, and the note.Now I ſhall anſwer negatively, to many erroneous, prejudicing circumſtances, which are by deſign heaped together, to put a plauſible face upon an envious libell, or illegall charge.
Firſt, Its ſaid it was ſome eight years ſince, I brought one Mrs Flavell to goodman Loughtons &c. which is an errour, though one of the ſmalleſt, brought in, to prejudice the more, for it was ſome nine years ſince.
Secondly, Its further ſaid this was carrying her to London, which I deny, for it was coming from London, where ſhe had for ſome time been.
Thirdly, That I asked whether my friend behind me, being ſick, might have entertainment &c. This I alſo deny, ſhe was not then ſick, neither did I uſe any ſuch expreſſions.
Fourthly, That I never mentioned ſhe was with child. Anſ. Though I did not (it concerning me to do it) yet ſhe herſelf did own it.
Fifthly, That in a ſhor time ſhe fell in travell. Anſ. A ſhort time may ſeem to imply ſome few dayes, or weeks, being brought in as an aggravating circumſtance, whereas it was ſome four or five moneths after.
Sixthly, That ſhe had no husband then as the world knew of. Anſ. She owned then to the people where ſhe was, and doth ſtill that ſhe had had a ſecond husband, which ſome in the4What world? not of this world that we know of, nor any one that we can learn by. world knew of very well, whoſe teſtimonies ſhe can and will produce, when ſhe hath ſufficient occaſion offered, by a legall call thereto, who is alſo able and ready to give a ſufficient accompt when occaſion ſerves, of her not openly aſſuming her ſecond huſbands name, her eſtate then ſtanding as it did, which having concealed for that time ſhe was in Law, ſhe thought*O ſilly and poor ſhift! good ever ſince to be called by her firſt husbands name: but this ſubtle dealing of her adverſaries, by libelling ſcandalls, without poſitively aſſerting ſhe was not married, makes her incapable or recovering any dammage of thoſe who now5We never deſigned any thing but this. ſc. if they do not produce the father Frewin. the Dr muſt be the father or the Pandar. enuiouſly, yet indirectly aſperſe her, which the Commiſſioners ought to take notice of, who ſhould not receive ſuch libells which tend to the blaſting of ones credit and good name▪ which all ſober Chriſtians (ought for the Goſpels ſake) to value, and yet abſolutely prove nothing of ſuch criminous fact, which they deſign ſeemingly to prove, nor yet give ſufficient ground of calling them to an account, for ſuch evill and malicious ſcandalls; but this not directly concerning me, I ſhall omit much which might be ſpoken of it.
Seventhly, That I came often to viſit her. Anſ. This is not true, it was rather ſeldome, being but three times in three quarters of a year, and that in Term time, upon urgent occaſions at Law.
"Eighthly, That I removed her to Kenſington. Anſ. That is falſe, For I knew not when ſhe removed thither.
Ninthly, That I paid the Smith, for her being at his houſe. Anſ. This is another untruth, I never paid him a penny, neither did I ever agree with him for her being there.
Tenthly, That the nurſes husband wrote a letter to me at Bradfield for mony for the childs nurſing. Anſ. This is a mere lye, for no ſuch letter was writ, neither did I ever agree for to pay for the nurſing of it, as the nurſe and her husband can witneſſe.
Eleventhly, That ſhortly after he ſent for the child away, this I alſo deny, it containing two untruths in it: for firſt, the child was not ſhortly after ſent for away, neither did I ſend for it at all, for it was fot away by the mother her ſelf.
Twelfthly, That a little while after, the ſaid little one was brought into my family. Anſwer, this is alſo falſe.
Thirteenthly, As to the ſeventh article of this libelling charge, in which many circumſtances are produced to ſcandall the gentlewoman, as though ſhe had told a great untruth it deſerves no other anſwer but this, that it is compacted of many lies, nothing being there true, that really tends to prejudice her, as I believe will appear by the event.
Thus, in this ſhort relation, wherein there is ſome truth, pray take notice how many untruthes, and mere lyes are mixed with it to put a beautifull face upon an envious and unchriſtian deſign, and is not this to bear falſe witneſſe againſt ones neighbour? may not any ones innocency and integrity, be in this manner undeſervedly clowded, aſperſed, and wounded, which I leave to the ſerious conſiderations of the Judges.
As to my affirmative anſwer, what I acknowledge is this.
About nine years ſince, I brought behind me from London the fore-mentioned Mrs Flavell, who had been of ancient and near acquaintance with me, and my family: to one Goodman Loughtons, a Smith in Heſſen, where, ſome four or five months after, ſhe was brought to bed of a daughter, which ſhe owned to the people where ſhe then was, to be by a ſecond husband, even as ſhe ſtill acknowledgeth, and further that I viſited her three times in the ſpace of three quarters of a year, at term time, being then ingaged in a Law ſuit, that concerned her that one of theſe times I chriſtned her child, and called it Hannah, that afterwards her occaſions requiring not ſo much privacy, ſhe came to live with her ancient acquaintance at my houſe, where alſo for ſome years her daughter hath been with her.
Now to take away any thing that may ſeem to reflect upon me in this my acknowledgement, pray conſider theſe ſubſequent particulars.
1. That I and Mr Pordage, being of very near and long acquaintance with her, it was but a friends courteſie for me upon her deſire, to carry her to this houſe behind me. That ſhe had ſufficient ground to retire into ſome ſuch place in the countrey, in that the city air was offenſive to her health.
2. In that by the counſell of able Lawyers ſhe was adviſed to retire to ſome private place; ſhe being then in law, ingagements, and continually ſubject to arreſts, by the intanglements of her firſt husbands eſtate: her brother in law, who was her adverſary, then threatning to ſeize on her if ſhe were above ground.
3. In reference to my ingagement in her law buſineſſe, I think it materiall, briefly to relate the grounds, and occaſions of it in the time of her widowhood: her brother in law began a ſuit with her in the Common law, which, fearing he ſhould be there overthrown, he removed to the Chancery. Now ſhe being very unfit, and uncapable to mannage this her ſelf, ſhe earneſtly deſired me as an ancient and truſty friend, to undertake it. Upon this, I went to Judge Roles, and Mr Chuts with her, who looking into her evidences, and into the will of her late deceaſed husband, found that for want of one clauſe in it, ſhe was liable to many ſuits and arreſts, and to great intanglements, and that her intereſt could not be eſtabliſhed, but by much difficulty, and at length this was the reſult of the Counſell. That ſhe muſt let all her eſtate which was under morgage, be forfeited into the hand of ſome faithfull friend, and ſo ſell it away. Hence, I, through much importunity, layed down ſome hundred pounds, reſcued the morgage, and ſo became intereſted in a ſuit at Chancery, which laſted three years. Now, from this may further appear ſufficient ground. Firſt, why I brought her to that private houſe. Secondly, why I came to her in the time of her retirement, I then received mony from her to follow her ſuite. Thirdly, why I came alone, it being then her intereſt to be concealed, being ſubject to arreſts.
I ſhall proceed to adde ſome few circumſtances more, which may ſerve to clear me before all ſober perſons.
Firſt, At my coming I told the people my name, and that I dwelt at6Could not you have ſaved all this pains by one certificate, where her huſhand lived, and died? had not you four monethes time, before your ſentence? Reding, that I was miniſter of St Lawrence Church, knowing the gentlewoman to be ſober and pious, now, had I been, as my enemies enviouſly pretend, I might have concealed my name, quality, and place of reſidence.
We diſcovered to them, that the gentlewoman had an eſtate in the bulwork at London, and rents there to receive, which they might enquire after, (as they did for their ſecurity) now this was not the way to cover a work of darkneſſe.
Thirdly, She ſometime went to London to the Lawyers, whilſt ſhe vvas there, ſome belonging to that family accompaning her, vvho found, that as ſhe had related ſhe vvas in great troubles at Lavv, and vvere convinced that ſhe retired on that accompt.
Now in reference to moſt of thoſe particulars, in which I have contradicted and denied the alledged circumſtances, and further vindicated my ſelf, they are exactly agreeing with what I have in writing confeſſed and acknowledged, by Loughton himſelf, from whom this charge is pretended to be received, and by the nurſe of the child, ſubſcribed by them both before witneſſes, which acknowledgement I ſhall produce, when I ſee occaſion.
And by this I hope it may appear, to moderate, ſober, and judicious men, that this libelling charge, drawn up ſo falſly, enviouſly, and yet ſo ſubtily,*It was called upon as ſoon as known. calling from the dead a buſineſſe paſt ſome nine or ten years ſince ſince, (which though it were criminous) as it is not) were legally to prejudice by the Act of oblivion, or generall pardon, as all other things pretended to be ſpoken or acted by me before 1651. according to the judgement of judicious men, which I leave to the Commiſſioners to conſider of; I ſay, that this is but the effect of the evil and wicked policy of my accuſer, brought forth to prejudice and overcloud that pure and innocent principle which I profeſſe, and faithfully live to; and the better to cover that evil deſign they have againſt my perſon, and livelyhood.
And now I appeal to the Commiſſioners, and to all that are pious, and ſober minded, whether my enemies do not deal very unreaſonably, enviouſly, and unlike Chriſtians, from this buſineſſe ſo long ſince paſt, which nothing criminous, is poſitively objected againſt me, to draw ſuch horrid concluſions, as commonly to report, that I now live in baſe luſt and wantonneſſe: notwithſtanding my commending of, and owning the virgin life, I ſay, whether this be not exceeding hard meaſure, and ungodly dealing, let all judge But I ſee that deſign of the Devil in it, which mine enemies may be ignorant of, which is, to overcloud, and darken by monſtrous lies, and ſcandalls, which are the ſmoke of the bottomleſſe pit, that7We deſire the reader (if he pleaſe to take the pains,) to conſider the animad. upon his virgin life, with theſe that follow, in anſwer to his pretended holineſſe, and ſwelling words of vanity. life of purity, chaſtity, mortification, ſelf deniall, and heavenly enjoyments, which God hath favoured me to live in; and ſo to affright all from my acquaintance, which otherwiſe might very much prejudice, and overthrow his kingdome. For the old ſerpent knows very well, as alſo my near friends and acquaintance, that for above theſe four years, even ſince the time of my great trialls, by the extraordinary temptations and repreſentations of the devil, that I have been abſtracted more then ordinary, from all outward things, giving my ſelf up wholly to prayer, watchfulneſſe, mortification, and conſtant ſelf deniall; in dying to all earthly pleaſures, even to things permitted, and accounted lawfull, as finding many things which ordinarily imbraced, to be great hinderances of the ſouls progreſſe to God, and great burthens to a ſpirit which taſted much of that tree of life, which groweth in the midſt of the Paradice of God, and great cloys to a ſoul that ſees through the vail of the ſenſitive nature, into the ſpirituall glory of eternity. But what I have enjoyed and experimented in this time of my extraordinary mortification, and ſelf deniall, in the death of the animall man, and riſing of Chriſts image in me, is not ſeaſonable now to declare; yet, for the glory of my God, and the undeceiving of thoſe who ſtrangely miſtake me: Thus much in all humility I muſt ſay, that did my accuſers and my enemies know, what I have enjoyed in this way of the croſſe, of the ſecret hidden treaſure of eternity, and of the out-goings of divine goodneſſe, were they but acquainted with thoſe diſcoveries of celeſtiall glory, inſtillations of the heavenly dew, and ſecret touches of the holy Ghoſt, did they but know thoſe bright irradiations of eternall light, thoſe ſtrong motions of divine life, and pleaſant ſtreams of eternall love, together with thoſe deep ſufferings, in bearing Chriſts croſſe, which I and many in my family, have in this time experienced, they durſt not thus condemn and judge me as an evil doer, and one that lives in the luſts of the fleſh; but my God hath taught me whilſt they curſe, to pray for them, whilſt they deſign to ruine me, to love them, and whilſt they hate me, to ſay with Chriſt, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
This I thought fit, in all humility, to annex to that libelling charge, concerning Mrs Flavell: from which I have undeſervedly ſuffered ſo much, by the malice of the devil, and now I ſhall proceed to anſwer the remaining articles, one of which is intermixed with the former ſeven that concern Mrs Flavell, which is this:
That we have changed our names.
Tis well known that we8It is falſe, for Mary Pocock ſubſcribes her name thus, Your friend, formerly called Mary Pocock, and before the Commiſſioners, ſhe did alwayes ſubſcribe her name with an R. though ſhe is able to write legibly. the R. ſtanding for Rahab. own and ſubſcribe our names in our civile converſe with the world, as this and my former anſwers teſtifie. I ſhall therefore wait to ſee whether any one dare ſwear to this article, and though we did in our own private family call one another by ſcripture names, yet I conceive it did not concern the civile Magiſtrate to take cognizance of ſuch a thing, it being not practiſed to make any diſturbance or confuſion in the State,
The proofs of the aforeſaid articles.
The aforeſaid Suſanna Grip,
This Deponent further ſaith, that ſhe told the Dr, ſhe heard it was reported, he ſhould keep company with a woman in London, and asked him if it were true. To which the Dr anſwering, asked her, who informed her ſo, the Deponent replyed, ſhe would tell him; whereupon the Dr ſmiled at it, and was not troubled, but denied it, ſaying no. But he made her a further anſwer, that he did allow of ſuch things, as ſhe underſtood him, but what his expreſſe words then were, ſhe cannot remember.
And the Drs anſwer to the ſaid article being read unto her, ſhe ſaith, ſhe doth not remember any ſuch paſſages, as are therein mentioned, viz. that he ſhould ſay I am a man born to all manner of ſuffering, and that the Deponent knew his life and converſation, but ſhe doth confeſſe ſhe did then reply, that ſhe did not believe any ſuch thing of him, and being croſſe examined, ſhe further ſaith, that (as ſhe remembers) the Dr did ſpeak that paſſage, (of allowing that they may have more then one woman) as his own judgement, and not as another mans; and this was ſpoken in the Deponents own Court, (no body elſe being then preſent) about three or four years ſince.
Roger Loughton of Heſton in the County of Middleſex Lockſmith, ſworn, and examined.
This Deponent ſaith, that about nine yeares ſince or upwards, Dr Pordage brought to this Deponents houſe Mrs Flavell behind him, under the name of Mrs Frewin, and that both the Dr and the ſaid Mrs Flavell did ask for entertainment for her, and that they did ask what they ſhould give for her board, and her ſon Stephens, and that they did bargain for eight ſhillings a week, and then he carried her away and ſhe came not till after Chriſtmas, and how ſhe then came, whether in a cart, with her trunck and cloaths, or otherwiſe, he knoweth not: but the Dr did not then come with her, and after ſhe had been there a while, the Deponents wife conceived ſhe was with child, which ſhe denied, ſaying it was a timpany, and that ſhe remained there till between Eaſter and Whitſuntide, when and where ſhe was brought to bed of a daughter, and ſhe did not deſire any ſtore of company to come to her labour, though the Deponents wife did deſire it; and after ſhe had been a ſhort time delivered, the Dr came, and baptized the childe in the Deponents chamber, and named it Hannah, and after that the Dr called the Deponent aſide into his orchard, and prayed him to find out a private place, two or three miles from the Deponents houſe, where Mrs Flavell might go now and then to ſee her child.
The Deponent anſwered, it would be inconvenient, becauſe it was a time of ſouldiers, and the corn way high, and thereupon he did not look out as the Dr deſired. And he further ſaith, that when the Nurſe did bring the childe ofttimes to ſee the ſaid Mrs Flavell, ſhe would not permit her ſon Stephen to call it*She was afraid of the proverb, viz. children and fools tell truth. ſiſter, ſaying it is not my child, Stephen, it is Nurſes. Afterwards the ſaid Mrs Flavell departed from the Deponents houſe, to Kenſington, where ſhe remained about a monethmonth, and that the Deponent having occaſion to go to London, called at Kenſington by the way, to ſpeak with her, but ſhe was gone from thene, whereupon the Deponent told that her child was not well, and then two gentlewomen of the houſe told the Deponent, that ſhe had denyed to them that ſhe had any other child but her ſon Stephen. And the Deponent further ſaith, that the Dr came to his houſe three or four times in Term time, and that both the Dr and the ſaid Mrs Flavell did inform the Deponent, that ſhe was marrird to one Mr Frewin, a Miniſter, about ſix weeks, but she was a widow, as both of them ſaid, when they came to the Deponents houſe.
Elizabeth Benwell maid-ſervant to Mr Ellis of Shinfield, formerly ſervant to the Dr, ſworn and examined, depoſeth,
That Mrs Flavell did uſually lye in the Drs bed-chamber, during the time the Deponent was ſervant there, which was about a year and a quarter.
The aforeſaid George Aſlet.
This Deponent further ſaith, that about a monethmonth ſince, Good wife Knap told him that ſhe being at the Drs houſe, Mrs Flavell was very angry with her, and threatned to have her whipt for ſaying the child Hannah was Mrs Flavells child, and that ſhe then denyed ſhe had any other child, except Stephen her ſon, and that when the ſaid Goodwife Knap denyed ſhe had ſaid any ſuch thing, and began to be outragious, the old and young Mrs Pordage deſired her to be pacified, ſaying, happily it might be another woman ſhould ſay ſo.