Transcribed from the 1817 Hay and Turner edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org

THE
Rod in Pickle;

OR,
AN ANSWER TO THE APPEAL
OF
JOHN CHURCH ,
The Obelisk Preacher:

CONTAINING AN

AUTHENTIC NARRATIVE OF THE CAUSE OF HIS LEAVING
BANBURY, IN OXFORDSHIRE:

TOGETHER WITH THE

Charges exhibited against him—the Meeting of his Friends in conse-
quence of those Charges—and the Result of that Meeting.

TO WHICH ARE ADDED,

HIS LETTERS,

Written to the Managers of the Banbury Meeting-House , begging them
not to let the Cause of his Dismissal be known in London .

By the Rev . T. LATHAM,
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.

“The nearer to Church the farther from God .”— English Proverbs .

London :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HAY AND TURNER,
No. 11, Newcastle-Street , Strand .

1817.

PRICE FOUR-PENCE .

p. 3 AN ANSWER
TO THE
APPEAL of JOHN CHURCH ,
&c. &c. &c.

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 p. 4 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 p. 5 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 p. 6 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?

p. 7 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 p. 8 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 p. 9 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 p. 10 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.

It was now called to mind at other places where Mr. Church was in the habit of sleeping, though some of them not so distant from home but that he might have returned with ease after preaching, that he has invariably wanted a bed-fellow, and it is affirmed that he has gone to seek for a farmer’s boy, or any one he could get, and apologised for bringing in a bed-fellow, by saying he was apt to be troubled with a lowness of spirits in the night after the fatigue of walking and preaching, and that he always preferred a bed-fellow for company in the night: he was also in the habit of taking a person of very low character with him from Banbury to be his bed-fellow; this person was a porter there, and the people were at a loss for the cause of such intimacy.  However, when the reports began to spread, this person was missing from Banbury, and was not heard of all the time I was there, which was looked upon as a circumstance that indicated nothing very favourable to Mr. Church.  Another thing which was also interpreted in an unfavourable light was, that Mr. Church had made companions of several buckish young men in Banbury, and had frequently amused himself with seeing them p. 11 naked, washing in a river or pond, and that he had been in their company at very unseasonable hours at night.  There was also a young man a hair dresser, apprentice to Mr. Hall, who attended Church to dress and shave him, and when he was about this business, Church used to take many indecent liberties with him.  The young man was much disgusted, but did not expose him till other things came out.  I was also informed by James Hall, grocer, a young man of serious principles, and who was in connection with Mr. Westley’s people, that being at a public association, at Warwick, if I recollect the place right, that having to stay all night, Mr. Church was very importunate with him to take a part of the bed which he had engaged, and would hardly admit of a denial; and when Mr. Hall positively refused to be his bed-fellow, Mr. Church appeared quite offended at his refusal.

As soon as Messrs. T. and J. Gardenner returned from inquiring into the affair at Kingham, and had reported the testimony of the boys and others to the people at Banbury, it was concluded to write to Church at Birmingham, and inform him of the result of their inquiries, and to let him know they disowned him as their Minister, desiring him at the same time not to return to Banbury on any account.  The letter he sent in answer to theirs was made up of concessions and apologies, self-criminations and excuses, half confessions, evasive retractions of those confessions, and evidently showed his mind while writing it to be much agitated.  Some of his own words are: “I have done foolishly—I have acted most imprudently; O! how I have wounded the dear cause of God at Banbury:—O! it breaks my very heart to think how I have given the enemies of the blessed Gospel cause to blaspheme on my account:—O! how I have abused the kindness of the best of friends:—O! if it be possible, don’t let the cause be known of my being absent from Banbury: you may say I am gone on a journey, and you will speak the truth; but, oh! my dear friends, I must return to you again; I cannot think of parting with you; do say that I may return; I must, indeed I must, or I shall die with grief.”  Elsewhere he says, “the boys tell a simple plain story , and you do right to believe them in what they say; and I own that I have been too imprudent, but I am not conscious of having done the actual crime ; if any thing of that nature has been of which they speak, it must have been without my knowledge, when I was asleep, and supposing I was in my own bed with my wife; but I know of no criminal intention or act, except in this way.” p. 12 The letter runs all in this strain, with frequent petitions to be permitted to return, and almost insisting on that being granted.  To this he had an answer sent from the principals of the congregation, in which, after treating the subject in a suitable manner, they tell him:—“You must not by any means or on any account whatever think of returning to Banbury, for we assure you that such is the abhorrence in which the crime you are accused of, is held by the people in Banbury, that were you to presume to come, neither your person nor the Meeting would be in safety.”

After this a letter was received from Mr. Burton, of Warwick, stating, that he had at last prevailed upon Church to accompany him to Kingham, and that he had examined the boys before Church, who told the same story as before, when all that he offered as an excuse was, that “it was possible for such things to have happened when he was asleep;” and that Church appeared to him deeply sensible of and humble for his imprudent conduct.  What Church wished to be understood by imprudent conduct was this, he is afflicted with a rupture, and grants that he had asked his bed-fellows either to look at or feel the difference of the rupture at night after preaching and in the morning after a night’s rest.  About the same time that Mr. Burton wrote to Banbury, as mentioned above, Church also wrote, and in this letter he acknowledges that the boys kept to their story in his presence, but excuses himself as before—that what passed was when he was asleep, and that the boys owned to him that they neither of them spoke a word to him at the time those things happened.  He also owns that he had been carried too much away with the vain desire of popularity, and lifted up with pride by the caresses of the people, and that the Lord had suffered this trial to befal him to humble him and empty him of self; that he now saw and lamented his folly; he acknowledges that he had been too gay and trifling, and too fond of young, light, and trifling company, with a great deal more self-crimination; then he proceeds to draw up a long set of rules for his future conduct, and promises, if restored to Banbury, to forsake the company of the young, and associate with the aged and grave—to revere their counsel and advice—to receive kindly their seasonable admonitions and rebukes—to give up the pursuit of popularity—to be content at home among his own people—to abandon all village preaching, and never again to sleep out of his own bed, nor away from his wife—and, in short, to change his conduct all through.  He also tells them how much he feels interested in their welfare, and proposes to send them a supply p. 13 for a season; but begs them, for God’s sake, not to let the real cause of his expulsion be made known .  In concluding he hopes that his confessions, promises of amendment, and professions of repentance will, at length, restore him to Banbury.

The last letter Mr. Church wrote to Banbury, from Birmingham, was to arrange some matters about his family following him up to London; and appears to have been written in great hurry and confusion.  I have made but one extract from that, which is as follows:—He says to Mr. T. Gardenner, to whom he wrote, “They have been, (alluding, I suppose, to some persons from Kingham, having been at Warwick) and brought the accounts hither, and have set all the people in such confusion about me, so that a dear friend of mine , who was apprehensive for my personal safety, set off from thence, late as it was, and arrived here (Birmingham) at a very late hour, and his coming has thrown the whole family where I am into such confusion and disorder, that it was judged prudent for me to leave the town immediately, which I shall do accordingly, without delay.  Look after my wife and the dear children, send her up by the first coach to London; she knows where to find me in town.”

I shall now give some account of the proceedings of the people at Banbury, as to drawing up the statement to be sent up to London, and the reason why it was kept back, after it was drawn up and written out by me, at the request of the people there.  In the first place, every letter was copied verbatim, in the regular order in which they had passed between Mr. Church and them.  To these was annexed a preliminary address, in the name of the principals of the congregation; the particulars already mentioned were stated, the various charges alledged, and then the conclusion they drew from the whole, which was couched in the following terms:—“We do not pretend to charge Mr. Church with having actually, and in the full extent of the thing, been guilty of the odious offence laid to his charge; but from the whole tenure of his conduct, his letters, and the various things that appear in evidence, we are constrained to believe, that he has discovered a most detestable propensity that way; and if what you receive in these documents are not sufficient proof to you of the same; if you choose to be at the expense of it, we can send you up a whole coach load of living witnesses to the same facts.”—Thus far the business had proceeded: all the papers were drawn up in order, and it only remained for them to be properly signed by the parties who p. 14 were principally concerned in the investigation, particularly by the deacons of the church; in order to this they were read at a meeting of those parties, and generally approved.  Messrs. J. and T. Gardenners, actually and readily signed their names to them; but Mr. Lambart, the acting deacon, positively refused to give his signature, and without it they could not be properly considered as the Churches act.  At this, the other parties were very much displeased, but could not prevail on Mr. Lambart, by any means, to sign his name.  The reason he alledged for not doing it was this, Mr. Church was indebted to him sixteen or seventeen pounds, and he said, that if those papers appeared in London against him, his friends there must all forsake him; and then he, Mr. Lambart, must loose his money, which he could not afford to do; and, therefore, until he had got that he would sign nothing against him; though, when he had got his money he did not care if Church was hanged; this much I heard Mr. Lambart assert.  This caused a demur, and though the other parties all wished the papers to go, they could not without Mr. Lambart’s name, for the reason mentioned above.  After some deliberations and consultations, it was represented by some, that they were likely to get into a deal of trouble if those papers were sent to London: that if Mr. Church was taken into custody, and had to undergo an examination, that they should have to attend as witnesses; and as they could not foresee all the inconveniences that might ensue both to themselves and also to Church; and as they had now done with him as their Minister, they finally agreed to suppress the papers, and leave him to get on in London in the best manner he could.

After my engagement at Banbury was fulfilled, I returned home; but when arrived in London, before the coach reached the inn at which it was to stop, a person called to the coachman, and inquired for my name; the coachman stopped and asked, if any passenger in the coach answered to that name: I answered, and was requested by the unknown person to accompany him to James’s-street, Covent-garden, where the congregation and minister were waiting for me, and would not proceed until I arrived.  This appeared singular to me, but, guessing the reason, I went with him to the place.  As soon as I arrived the service went on, and at the close of the sermon, the preacher addressed the people; and, pointing to me, told them that I was just come up from Banbury, where I had been a month with the people that Mr. Church had left, and that from me they might have a true account of what had passed. p. 15 Then he spoke to me: “Do, dear brother, stand up and tell the people what you know about this affair;” and, having thus spoke, sat him down.  All eyes were now on me, and I was obliged to rise and say something: I told the people I found myself awkwardly situated—just come from the coach—my thoughts uncollected on the subject—and an entire stranger both to them and Mr. Church, whom I had never seen; I wished to speak with caution—though I must confess that at Banbury there were reports in circulation very unfavourable to him, and proofs of his having acted with imprudence and indiscretion.  I then mentioned what was said by the boys at Kingham, and begged to be excused from saying more.  The Minister then made a very warm harrangue to the people at some length, and so the business terminated at that time.

The next evening I preached at a certain place in London, and after sermon the two Deacons of the place requested me to attend them to Rehoboath Chapel, where I was again interrogated by a Mr. White and another Minister.  I told them some particulars which they seemed to get over very well.  They then shewed me a letter, and asked me if I knew the hand writing, which I did.  Strange as it may appear, this letter was from a person who was present at the meeting at Banbury, before mentioned, in answer to one they had wrote to him, in which he exonerated Mr. Church from every thing but a little imprudence in getting into debt, saying he was a good preacher, a good father, and a good husband, and adds, when you see him give my kind love to him.

Some months after this, when Mr. Church was at Chapel Court Meeting, I accepted of an invitation to take tea with Mr. Harper, proprietor of that Meeting.  Mr. Niven went with me; upon Mr. Harper expressing a wish to be informed of every particular relative to the Banbury business, I said but little then; but observed that I should not have the least objection provided Mr. Church was present.  This was agreed to, and a meeting was held in the vestry of Chapel-court Meeting.  Here, for the first time, I saw Mr. Church.  Mr. Love, Mr. Niven, Mr. Harper, Mr. Burbridge, and some others were present.  Mr. Church and I were total strangers to each other; but in the presence of the meeting, I stated every particular that I have written in these pages; and the parties present all listened to the account.  When I had done, I asked Mr. Church if I had done him any wrong?  He said, he believed I had given a true statement; he also acknowledged the quotations from his letters to be correct.  After this I heard him preach two p. 16 evening Lectures in Chapel-court, and spoke to him and Mr. Burbridge, and this is all the acquaintance I ever had with him.  I thought proper to mention these things in the presence of Mr. Church, that all who read this (now made public) may be assured they have a correct account of nothing more than what Mr. Church has acknowledged correct before so many witnesses.  And I considered it needful to state my very slight knowledge of him, because some persons account of my being so often called upon to speak about him, have tried to make it out that I was an intimate acquaintance of his.  But I hope that is sufficiently proved to be a false representation.  I have made no comment on any part of the subject, nor do I intend to make any: every person must read and think for himself, and put that construction on the whole that appears most natural to him.  Some will, perhaps, say why did you never make these things public before?  I answer because I did not till now see it proper.  And others will say, why keep the secret so long, and now divulge it after all?  I answer, such I kept it while I thought it right to do so, and make it public for the satisfaction of those who wish to know both the beginning and conclusion of the whole matter.

T. L.

Just Published, Price Two Shillings.

THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF JOHN CHURCH, the Preacher or the Surrey Tabernacle, Borough Road, at the Surrey Assizes, at Croyden, on Saturday, the 16th of August, 1817, for an Assault with Intent to Commit an UNNATURAL CRIME.  Taken in Short Hand, by a Barrister.  The profits arising from this Publication will be given to the Prosecutor to assist in defraying the expenses of the Prosecution.  London: Printed and Published by Hay and Turner, 11, Newcastle Street, Strand; and may be had of W. Wright, Marsh-gate, Lambeth, and all Booksellers in Town and Country.

Also, Just published, price Fourpence (entered at Stationers’ Hall),
HAY AND TURNER’S GENUINE EDITION OF

THE INFAMOUS LIFE OF JOHN CHURCH, the St. George’s Fields Preacher, from his Infancy up to his Trial and Conviction.  With HIS CONFESSION, sent in a letter to the Rev. Mr. L—, two days after his Attack on Adam Foreman, at Vauxhall; with Remarks on it, by the same Gentleman.  To which are added, HIS LOVE EPISTLES TO E— B—; with various other Letters, particularly one to Cook, of Vere-street Notoriety!

Printed and published by Hay and Turner, No. 11, Newcastle-street, Strand; and may be had of all Booksellers.—None are Genuine but those published by Hay and Turner, they having the Original Letters in their possession.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hay and Turner, Printers, Newcastle-Street, Strand.

FOOTNOTES.

[5] We are informed that Church belongs to that sect called Antinomians , which is that 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 was one of the essential and distinctive characters of the elect that they cannot do any thing displeasing to God, or prohibited by Law.”

[7] Though Mr. Garrett wrote to me I had never seen him but once in my whole life, but he knew I was at Banbury.

[8] This Meeting was held at the house of Mr. Hall, at Banbury, whose letter will be found in page 8, of the Life of Church, published by us.