THERE is something so ungenerous in assailing a fallen foe—something so outrageous to humanity—that nothing but an imperative and paramount sense of duty to the public, could induce the Publishers of the following details, to notice the contents of “an Appeal to the Candid Public,” by John Church. Unfortunately for him, unfortunately for the practice he has espoused, his own account is sufficient to condemn him; so that it might justly be said of him—“Out of thine own mouth I judge thee, thou worker of Iniquity!” What, indeed, do his exculpations mean? Every where he intimates his proneness to the hateful and unpardonable sin of backsliding. But still he backslides in his sleep. Unknowing transgressor! What would society say of that female, who, acknowledging that she had been seduced, should pretend that her seduction was effected in her sleep?
Professors like Church are the bane of christianity. They are tares among the wheat. Jesus may be in their mouths, penitence and pardon their prayers, but their practice is that of Satan!
The Reverend John Church is pleased to charge the present Publishers with “the revival of old tales, printed about five years ago;” and, really, it is much to be apprehended that “The Rod in Pickle,” now presented to the religious world, will refresh his memory not most agreeably as to circumstances which he himself would willingly have buried in the silence of the grave. “Willingly” as he avows himself “amenable to the laws,” we much doubt whether he would willingly have the details now published in due form, submitted to a jury of his countrymen. Some “two false boys” might happen to make out a serious case against him, as one lad lately has done.
Whatever were the circumstances of Church’s early life, they certainly are of small moment in this question. Did he not, after he coaxed them to become his bedfellows, at sundry times, continue to “suppose that he was in his own bed with his wife,” and behave to “boys” as though he mistook them for his wife? Uxorious gentleman!
If, however, the reverend John Church could not travel without his “better half,” why was not the poor woman his helpmate at every stage of his preaching life? Besides, in the absence of her, one should have thought, considering circumstances, that his attention would have been paid rather to females than to males.
Nothing can be more disgusting to a well-constituted mind—abating its sinfulness—than the presumption with which the reverend John Church relies on religion for his salvation. No one is to cast a stone at him. Charged as he undeniably stands with transactions the most unnatural and foul—charged and convicted!—still, forsooth, he, and only he, is in the tenderness of mercy to be spared.
And how, after all, does he get out of the Vere Street scrape? Simply by asserting that there are “ten lies” in the paragraph which accuses him, and that it is scarcely worth his while to notice them, though those very lies had blasted his character. Would any plain honest man have endured such an imputation for half an hour? Even since the year 1808, at least, this miserable preacher has been detected of that sex-abusing crime for which language does not furnish an epithet. His sin has finally found him out, and it will be impossible for him to escape the penalty due to it.
Banbury!—The reverend John Church has just denied that he was “driven out from thence;” but what will he say now, when “The Rod in Pickle” is twitching his hide, and making him writhe at every stroke? Although, from feelings of pity and mingled shame, the Congregation at Banbury would “not pretend to charge Mr. Church with having actually, and in the full extent of the thing,” anno 1808, “been guilty of the odious offence laid to his charge,” yet, “from the whole tenor of his conduct, his letters, and various things that appear in evidence,” they declared they were then “constrained to believe that he had discovered a most detestable propensity that way,” adding, that “such was the abhorrence in which the crime he was accused of was held by the people in Banbury, that, was he to presume to return there, neither his person nor the Meeting would be in safety.”
Mr. Church will, we are aware, try to overwhelm us with antinomian {5} bulls; but as his faith is not likely to remove mountains, though it may raise some, we are content to bear the entire weight of woe. Conscious that we shall have fulfilled our duty to man—doubtless to woman—we shall lie down content. We commisserate “poor human nature,” quite as deeply as the reverend Mr. Church, but, then, our pity is limited to natural sins. Offences of another description we confess we cannot consent to tolerate. This avowal may seem somewhat harsh to such persons as the Reverend John Church, but we cannot help making it. “Abusers of themselves!”—Has the reverend John Church forgotten what awaits such men?
AUTHENTIC NARRATIVE OF THE Cause of Mr. Church Leaving Banbury, IN OXFORDSHIRE.
BY THE REV. T. LATHAM, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.
IN the month of August, 1808, application was made to me by two Ministers in London, to supply the place of John Church, at Banbury, without being informed of the reason of his so suddenly leaving. As I was an entire stranger to Mr. Church and the people at Banbury, I had no reason to inquire, or suppose that any thing unpleasant had occurred. However, about the middle of the week after my first Sabbath there, Mr. Lambart, the acting Deacon of the Church, brought me a letter, directed to his care for me, from Mr. Garrett, of Lant-street Meeting, {7} in which he mentioned the steps Mr. Church was taking to get into Chapel-court Meeting, to the injury of Mr. Nivin, the Minister of that place, and also to the prejudice of himself, Mr. Garrett. In this letter Mr. Barrett hinted at the cause of Mr. Church’s leaving Banbury, and earnestly wished me to send him and Mr. Nivin the particulars.
After shewing the letter to Mr. Lambart and Mr. Hall, I asked their counsel on the business (being a stranger to the whole affair) who advised me to take the letter to some of the principal-persons of the meeting; accordingly I went with them to Mr. J. Gardenner and others, to whom Mr. Garrett’s letter was shown, when it appeared that several letters of inquiry had been sent them from different persons in London, but they from delicacy had declined giving any answer; however, they now determined that a Meeting should be held of the principal persons belonging to the congregation. {8} I did not attend that Meeting; however, the day following, I was informed that they had concluded to draw up an impartial statement of the whole matter, and send it with copies of all the letters that had passed between them and Mr. Church; I was requested to transcribe a correct copy of the whole, which I did, and from that copy the following extracts were impartially made:—
It appears that Mr. Church, while at Banbury, was very popular as a preacher; he seemed fond of preaching at many places round the neighbourhood, and was always well received: among other places, he was in the habit of preaching at Kingham, at which place he was held in very high esteem, and had many marks of the peoples’ favour. He had made an engagement to go to Birmingham; but a few days before he set off for that place, Mr. T. Gardenner also received a letter, from a gentleman at Kingham, at whose house Mr. Church was usually entertained, directed for Mr. Church, requesting that it should be delivered into his own hand and to no other person. Mr. T. Gardenner accordingly waited on him, and put it into his hand; on opening it he changed countenance; on reading further he became quite confused, and appeared very much agitated and alarmed, but endeavoured to conceal it as much as possible. Mr. Gardenner perceiving this, requested an explanation. This he obtained by Church shewing him the contents of the letter: this letter, it seems, reprimanded his indelicate conduct towards two boys in the family, the gentleman’s son and a servant boy, who had both, at his request, been his bed-fellows in their turns; and finally it forbid his coming to preach at Kingham again. Mr. Gardenner, thunder-struck at this, entreated him to go directly to Kingham and clear up the point, which Church said had no foundation but in the falsehood and malice of the boys; but Church declined going, alleging that it was of little consequence what two false boys would say, and that his going to Kingham would derange his plan of going to Birmingham, and that by the time he returned the rumour would be done away. Mr. Gardenner thought otherwise, and used every argument to prevail on him to go, offering to accompany him with other friends to clear him if possible, before the report got farther abroad.—However, he still refused going with his friends, but promised to call and settle the business himself as he went to Birmingham. This he did not do, but took his journey to Birmingham, leaving all in the greatest confusion among his friends at Kingham and Banbury. The report quickly spread, and such was the popular indignation, that it was found necessary to keep the Meeting-house shut up, as both that and the persons who had attended it were in danger, from the insults of the enraged people of the town; the people were hooted and shouted at in the streets, and branded with the opprobrious name of S—m—s; the same was written upon the doors, walls, and window-shutters of the place of worship, and fears were entertained that the Chapel would have been burnt or pulled down. Messrs. J. and T. Gardenner now went over to Kingham to investigate the whole affair, the particulars of which are as follows:—It appeared that whenever Church had occasion to sleep from home he always wished to have a man or boy to sleep with him. At Kingham he sometimes slept with the son of a gentleman, who always made him welcome to his house when at that place, whom he used to clasp round the neck, after preaching, and say to him, “_Come_, now, you must be my bed-fellow to-night.” But the son at length refusing to be his bed-fellow, he had the servant boy in his place, for as yet nothing was suspected; at length both of them refused sleeping with Mr. Church; and when the reason was demanded, the son said “I don’t like to deep with Mr. Church, because he always — on me in bed;” the boy said “I don’t like sleeping with Mr. Church, because he — me so much.” From this rustic and simple statement of the boys the inference was easily drawn; and as the boys at every examination told the same tale, both when examined by the gentleman of the house, by Messrs. Gardenners’, and also from Mr. Church’s refusing to go to Kingham, and from many things that now came out in different quarters, as well as from many things in Mr. Church’s letter, no doubt remained but that he had acted imprudently and indelicately, to speak in no more glaring terms; and the people at Banbury thought they were fully justified in disowning him for their Minister, and all the neighbourhood was of the same opinion.
