Chapter II: Part 2

The promise made in last Sunday’s Dispatch, that a description should every week be given of some conventicle preacher noted for ignorance and absurdity, was at the time rather premature, and the fulfilment of it must be suspended for two or three weeks longer; because I wish to mark out a boundary of separation, like an impassable chasm, between the character I have hitherto been developing, and those I intend hereafter to criticise. However great may be the mass of folly, ignorance, and fanaticism, which prevail throughout most of the low conventicles of this metropolis, and however injuriously they may operate on the human mind, their effects are innocence and virtue, compared to the influence of that guilt which I have exposed, and which I am prepared to expose still more effectually in any Court of Justice. I believe that the poor silly visionaries who deal in pictures, in miracles, and monstrous conceits, are not wilfully or practically vicious, and that they have _lashed_ themselves into a belief, of what they preach; therefore I cannot think of dragging them forward so close upon the heels of Mr. John Church, as to hold out an appearance of their belonging to the same society. Some interval of time, therefore, is necessary for the distinction which I wish to draw. When I come to speak of them it shall be in a spirit of playfulness, and not with a feeling of abhorrence. Respecting the last mentioned person I should have been silent ever since the 18th ultimo, had he preserved that _silence_ which a sense of common decency would have pointed out to any other person, except himself. After having been held to bail for the purpose of being tried on charges not to be named among Christians, he ought to have abstained from entering his pulpit, and shunned the very light, until his character was cleared to the satisfaction of his congregation, who ought to have deemed it a sacrilege to be present while he attempted to promulgate the doctrines of Christ in a place of divine worship. But one would think there was a congeniality of sentiment and of _sympathy_ between the pastor and the flock! Indeed this latter remark is founded upon something more than conjecture: for a great number of persons who are in the habit of frequenting the obelisk chapel, have taken up the cause of their preacher with a zeal that cannot easily be accounted for in any way but _one_. They will investigate no charge; they reject all evidence. Their _Temple_ is open, and their _High Priest_ is in as much _favour_ as ever he was. They are, I am told, raising money to carry on prosecutions against those whom they call his calumniators; but it is probable that the money will be expended in _some other place_, besides Westminster Hall. I have been threatened with an action as will appear by the following notice, which was left at my office last Friday se’nnight, and which for the amusement of the reader I publish _verbatim_ and _literatim_.

To Mr. R. Bell the Editor and Proprietor and also—to Mr. Robt
Barber—the Printer, of a Certain Weekly Publication or Newspaper
Calld the Weekly Dispatch and to all others whom It doth shall or may
Concern.

My name appearing In some of the Above-named Newspapers and In other
Publication Issued by Some of you or by your Directions I do
hereby—give you and Each of you, Notice from, henceforth to Desist
from the further Printing or Circulation—of Such Papers and that In
Case My Name, or any (thing) Respecting (me) or Tending, to Inflame
the Public Mind against me, Shall appear In any future Publications
Sanctioned or Authorisd by you or Under you Direction’s I shall
Commence Such Legal measures, against you for the Same As the Law
Enable Me and Counsel shall advise and I Do hereby—give you and Each
of you further Notice that (as) I am about to Commence—and acxtion
against you for the Publication above alluded to, that you do not
Part with or alter, or In any manner mutilate the manuscripts from
which Publications were Printed.

Date—this
30 Day of
April 1813
John Church.

This precious composition (no attorney could write any thing like it) bears the real signature of John Church which exactly resembles that of the letter he wrote to Cook of Vere-street. I now then call on him to put his threat into execution; I call on him to bring his action against me; and he may depend on it, I shall be prepared with my _proofs_ and my JUSTIFICATION. I repeat what I said in my last, that I bear this man no resentment of a personal nature, I can have none towards one I never spoke to, and never saw but once, and then in his pulpit. My sole object is to do that which the civil power seems unable to do—to prevent one of the most horrid of vices, from being propagated through the medium of pretended sanctity. The person of whom I am speaking, has called at my office, and expressed a wish to see me (_this was very like bringing an action_!) fortunately I was not there at the time; and I now desire that neither he nor any of his associates may call on me, for I will speak with none of them except in a Court of Law.

* * * * *

_To the Editor of the Weekly Dispatch_.

Banbury, May 5, 1813.

SIR,—In your Paper of the 25th ult. in an article relative to John Church, you say, “The Magistrates sent him away from Banbury.” As some persons might, from this erroneous statement, conceive that the people to whom he preached then, heard with indifference of his vile propensities; we beg of you, in justice to them, to correct this error. It was the Trustees of the Chapel who gave him his immediate dismission from their place, on the first intimation of his destestable practices, to which they could attach any credit.

We are, Sir,

Your humble Servants,
JOSEPH GARDNER.
THOMAS GARDNER.

* * * * *

_The following are the letters referred to in pages_ 8 & 9.

Honoured Sir,—In reply to your letter concerning Mr. C. I can only
inform you, there was a report against him of a very scandalous
nature; but how far his culpability extends, it is quite out of my
power to determine. He was absent from hence when the rumour first
spread. The Managers of our Chapel took great pains to enquire into
the origin of such reports, and the result was, they sent Mr. C.
positive orders never, on any account, to return to Banbury again;
which advice he has hitherto wisely observed. Now, Sir, after giving
you the above information, I beg leave to conclude the subject, by
referring you to your own comment hereon.

(Signed) S. HALL.

Banbury, March 7,
1810.

The next extract exhibits the confession of Wm. Clarke, of Ipswich.

Having been called by providence to Colchester, I went to hear John
Church preach in a barn, was invited to Mr. Abbott’s; was prevailed
upon to sleep with John Church; I did sleep with him three nights;
after being enticed to many imprudences, I was under the necessity to
resist certain attempts, which, if I had complied with, I am fearful
must have ruined both soul and body; the crime is too horrid to
relate.

WILLIAM CLARK.

RICHARD PATMORE
J. ELLISON
C. WIRE
H. T. WIRE
Witnesses.

P.S. This took place in March last, 1812.

* * * * *

The third letter casts still further light on the dark business of the former.

_Colchester_, _September_ 16, 1812.

SIR,

Last evening I had an interview with Clark’s father, who wishes him
to comply with your wishes. I mentioned to him respecting Church’s
conduct, and I find the last night to be the worst. Likewise that he
would have committed the act had not Clark prevented him. The
particulars I told was when in London, but find them worse than what
I describe to you. They are not able to be at any expence; but if
the Gentlemen wish to prosecute, and to pay Clark’s expences up to
London, &c. he will have no objection to come, when you please to
send. I need only say, I wish you to inform the Gentlemen, and give
me a line.

I am, dear Sir,

Yours, &c.
C. WIRE.

* * * * *

The following is the narrative which Cook has given to his acquaintance with _Parson Church_; and which was taken down from his own dictation by Mr. E— B—:

In May, 1810, J. Cook was in company with Mr. Yardley and another
young man by the name of Ponder. I found after that the said Ponder
was a drummer in the Guards; but Cook went to call at a house in the
London Road, where I saw Mr. Church the first time in my life; there
was at this house about twelve or fourteen altogether drinking gin,
and Mr. Church handed me a glass of the same, which I took; Church
behaved very polite to me, and said what a fine fellow I was, he
pressed me very much to stop and get tea with them, for he said he
would call and see me when I was settled in the house in Vere-street.
I stopped a little while and was about to leave them when Church said
I should not go before I had tea, and flung down a dollar, and a man
by the name of Gaiscoin took the money and went for the tea and other
things but I would not stay, Church came out of the room with me, and
walked with me as far as the turnpike, there he met another Gentleman
which I never saw before, and I went on and left him for that time, I
think it was 6 or 8 days. I went to live at the Swan, and saw Church
again, he came about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and Mr. Yardley
accosted him, ‘Parson what are you come to see the Chappel?’ he said
‘yes, and to preach too:’ Church asked me how I was, I said I was not
very well, he asked me why I went away in that shy manner, I told him
he was a stranger to me, and I did not like to be intruding on
strange people, he said I was shy, he did not know what to make of
me, he also pressed me very much to take a walk with him, but I
declined it, he said I must go, but I still declined, and did not go
with him, he staid some time and joined the company that was in the
Back Parlour, persons by the name of Miss Fox and Miss Kitty Cambrick
was among them, and the Queen of Bohemia. As Mr. C. was going away,
he came to the bar and spoke to me, and said I must take something to
drink, which I did, and he paid for it, and left the house for that
time. In a few days he called again in the afternoon, and there was
not many people there, he asked if Yardly was at home, I said he was
not, he said he was very sorry for it, I asked him what he wanted, he
said he came on purpose for me to take a walk with him, but I did not
go, he said he would wait until Yardly came in, Church said I should
do him a great favor if I would take a walk with him, I would not go,
he still pressed me very much to go, I said I would if he would wait
till I had cleaned myself, he waited more than two hours for me, I
went to steep because I would not go with him, and in the mean time
he waited so long that he was tired, he sent the waiter to call me,
which he did, and said the Parson wanted me, and had been waiting two
hours for me, I said him wait, for I should not come, he returned and
said if I would but speak to him, he should go away happy. I found I
could not get rid of him, I went down stairs, he said well, Sir, I
hope your nap has done you good, I said I dont know, dont bother me,
he said I was very cross to him, I told him there was other men
without me, if he wanted to preach, not to preach to me about
crossness. He said well if that was the case he was very sorry he
had offended me, I told him he had not offended me nor pleased me,
but as I was not well and the less any one talked to me the better I
liked it. He said if I was but friends with him, and shake hands
with him, he should go away happy. Mr. Yardly said, I never see such
a fellow as I was, for I had affronted every body that came to the
house. I then shook hands with the Parson, for at that time I did
not know his name. He shook hands with me, and we had something to
drink, and Mr. Church paid for it and went away. I never saw him
until I came out of Newgate, I was talking to Mr. and Mrs. Holloway,
and telling them there was a Parson somewhere about St. George’s
Fields, but his name I did not know. He asked me if I should know
him if I saw him, I said I should, by that I went to the Chapel and
saw Mr. Church, and then I asked the people what was the Parson’s
name, they told me his name was Church. I said he ought to be
ashamed of himself to preach there, a *** and rascal, and left the
place, and went home in the greatest pains I ever felt in my life,
and was resolved to see him, which I did the next day, and give him
one of the hand-bills, and the manner he received me, was like a
young man would his sweetheart, I begun my conversation:—Well, Sir, I
suppose you do not know me. He said he did not. I said my name was
Cook, that kept the Swan, in Vere street. He said he thought so, but
was not sure: he said, why did I not call before and shake hands with
a body. I told him I did not know where he lived, nor I did not know
his name until I went to the Chapel and found him out. He told me
not to make it known that he ever came to my house, for he and Roland
Hill had daggers drawn, and that he should be obliged to indite Hill
to clear up his character, and for God’s sake do not expose me.

(_Here the Narrative breaks off_.)

POSTCRIPT.

In addition to the above testimonies, the Editor has received a very long narrative of atrocities committed by JOHN CHURCH while he resided at Banbury, which has been written by a Minister at that place; but the facts are too disgusting and shocking to be published.

On the 6th of June 1813, the Grand Jury for the County of Middlesex found a Bill of Indictment against _John Church_ for his attempt some years ago on a lad named Webster.

* * * * *

Printed by and for R. BELL, Bride Lane, Fleet Street.

SECOND POSTCRIPT.

_July_ 15.

This Pamphlet was printed and ready for publication some weeks since; but the Editor thought proper to keep it back until the trial of John Church, which came on at the Middlesex Sessions on Monday the 12th of July 1813; when he was _acquitted_. Indeed the Editor never imagined that any other verdict than one of acquittal, would have been given on that particular prosecution. If the Reader looks back to pages 25 and 26, he will find in the account there given of the proceedings at Union Hall, that this prosecution was ORDERED by the Magistrates of that Office, and _did not originate_ with the prosecutor, William Webster, on whom the abominable attempt was alleged to have been made eleven years ago; that the very mention of the attempt was a mere incidental circumstance arising out of another proceeding then before the Magistrates; and that the latter, upon hearing it, dismissed the first complaint, and obliged Wm. Webster to become (what he never until then intended to be) a prosecutor against Church. Let the Reader also take notice of the following sentence in the report in page 26: “The Magistrate observed, that from the length of time which had elapsed since the offence had been committed, he thought a Jury would not feel justified in finding him guilty.” This William Webster, therefore, considered, in all respects, as an unwilling prosecutor, who was supported only by one counsel of young standing, {38a} and had to struggle against two of the most able advocates {38b} in the criminal courts. The Editor (for he was not present at the trial) understands that Webster gave his evidence with embarrassment and trepidation, and he suffered himself to fall into some inconsistencies. With this _solitary_ and confused evidence, and after a lapse—after a _silence_ of ELEVEN YEARS, was it possible to suppose that a Jury would have found any man guilty? It must here be observed that the decision on this solitary complaint of eleven years standing, does not in the slightest degree affect any of the numerous accusation at a more recent date, which have been made against John Church.

FOOTNOTES.

{5} In the DISPATCH of the 21st ult. the Editor, when speaking of the publicity given to the evidence respecting the Princess of Wales, expressed the following sentiments on this question: “There are cases in which a great deal more injury both to morals and liberty, may arise from the suppression than the exposure of indecencies.”—“Complaints have often been made from very high quarters of the publicity given to certain proceedings in Courts of Justice; and it is but justice to say, that within the last twenty years, the press has been very cautious in its manner of relating them. But it is a matter of doubt with many wise men whether the suppression of facts in such instances does not, upon the whole, do more injury to public morals than a complete disclosure of them; particularly so, if there be any suspicion that facts have been suppressed.”

{6} Messrs. Gurney and Alley.

{7} The Reader will find this fac simile accompanying the present pamphlet.

[Picture: Facsimile of John Church’s letter to James Cook]

{11} A Correspondent, who happened to attend two or three times at Church’s Meeting-house, took down the following sentences from his Sermons. They may gratify the curiosity of the reader.

“God is frequently going forth, and we also are often going to the
window to look for him; The more _vile I am_ made to appear to the
_World_ the more _God_ will _assist_ me. Every citizen is a
free-born. Many have wondered how I could go thro’ so much trouble.
There have been a great many that have wished to see me—I can inform
them I had much rather they had wished to see Christ. People may be
laughed at for being fools, but you may depend upon it the more God
will like them. All that believe not will certainly be damned. The
duties of Christianity are not to be preached to an ungodly world;
John Church is very much spoken of, but they had much better speak of
Jesus; the people of the established church feel no spiritual joy.
Spiritual discourse is enlivening to the senses, &c. The bread of
life is not to be given away to _Dogs_. I am not going to turn
auctioneer, but I am going to inform you that next Lord’s Day I am
going to publish a book proving that God the Son, and the Spirit, are
all one great God. My sermon will be good news and comfort to all
poor sinners; Satan and all his spirits never sleeps; the power of
life and death is only in the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ. Devils
are allowed to harrass the people of God day and night—no wonder they
perplex those they cant destroy. People are mostly liable to fall in
their first love into awful heresies and temptation. All the Lord’s
people do not see into the glory of my text—’tis like a jewel in a
rock of Adamant. The worst sin was the murdering of God’s saints.
When I sit in darkness the Lord will be a light unto me. Many men
laugh at the doctrine of the new birth,—are there not many learned
Doctors that know nothing of it? Let a man come under any
circumstances I will receive him;—Don’t laugh at the doctrine of
inspiration; he wise, it has often been preached by our church,—I am
never tired of preaching, and I believe my dear brethren are never
tired of hearing me. If every one that is saved should be as bright
as the sun, what a place heaven must be, where there will be so many
millions! Angels beckon me away, and Christ bids me come. The sight
of Christ, you may depend on’t, will be worth suffering for. O that
I had the voice of an archangel, I would indeed do wonders. I doubt
the superiority of one angel over another in heaven—Christ is
entirely independent, of or with God. We must have the spirit of God
before we are his people. Believe in the predestination of eternal
life, but not in eternal death; people that suffer were beforehand
predestined so to do, _by God_. Bad or horrid is the religion of a
proud Pharisee. That religion that is preached by the people of God
is God himself. There can be no going forth until the Spirit of God
has entered. The MOB is seldom stirred up but thro’ Priests, there
is now a case of the very kind; when envy bursts forth thro’ jealous
and envious neighbouring _Priests_, and published by _Deists_, there
can be nothing to fear; and I verily believe that any thing prayed
for to Christ will certainly be granted, as has always been the case
with me. Let us for ever endeavour to turn every thing, whether good
or bad, into good. I do not not believe that God begot Jesus
Christ—they say too that Joseph was an impostor at this very
day;—every thing that is done against the church is done against
Christ; also that which is done against Christ is done against the
Church; and any thing done against the people of God is done against
Christ. It is a most blessed thing that we can throw our burthens
upon Christ;—I do not care who hears me, whether _God_, or _Man_,
_Friends_, or _Foes_, _Devils_ or _Angels_, or any thing else, and
let them call me an Antinomian again if they please. There must be
spiritual life in the soul. The Lord Jesus Christ and the people of
God are all one. Christ has no sorrow but the people of God must
sympathise with him; and the people of God have no affliction but
that Christ sympathises with them.”

{20} Alluding to his being turned out of Banbury.

{21} Before Church got to bed to young Clark, he scoffed at secret prayer. What abominable hypocrisy, to hear the same man pretending to pray before a public congregation, where he can get himself paid for his devotions! how he must hate and despise himself on account of his own most odious cant!!!

{22} A full proof of this has been given, in the falsehoods he has repeatedly urged, to ward off the charges brought against him in these papers.

{27} I am informed that Church belongs to that sect called ANTINOMIANS, which is thus described by the Rev. John Evans in his “Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World”:—

“The Antinomian derives his name from ANTI and NOMOS; signifying,
against, and a Law, his favourite tenet being, that the law is not a
rule of life to believers. It is not easy to ascertain what he means
by this position, but he seems to carry the doctrine of imputed
righteousness of Christ and salvation by faith without works to such
lengths as to injure, if not wholly destroy the obligation to moral
obedience. Antinomianism may be traced to the period of the
reformation, and its promulgator was John Agricola, originally a
disciple of Luther. The Papists in their disputes with the
Protestants of that day, carried the merit of good works to an
extravagant length; and this induced some of their opponents to run
into the opposite extreme. “This sect (say the Encyclopedia) sprung
up in England during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, and
extended the system of libertinism much farther than Agricola, the
disciple of Luther. Some of their teachers expressly maintained,
that as the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the divine
favour, the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor are
they to be considered as instances of their violation of the Divine
Law; consequently they have no occasion to confess their sins, or to
break them off by repentance. According to them it is one of the
essential and distinctive characters of the elect that they cannot do
any thing displeasing to God, or prohibited by Law.”

{38a} Mr. Adolphus.

{38b} Messrs. Gurney and Alley.