Religion & Morality Vindicated, Against Hypocrisy and Pollution / Or, an Account of the Life and Character of John Church the Obelisk Preacher, Who Was Formerly a Frequenter of Vere-street, and Who Has Been Charged With Unnatural Practices in Various Places. To Which Is Annexed, a Fac-simile of a Letter, Written by Him to James Cook, Who Kept the Infamous House in Vere-street.

Extract from the Weekly Dispatch of May 2, 1813.

The statements published in the two last numbers of the Dispatch respecting this person have excited a degree of public attention unexampled in the history of newspapers.  I am rejoiced at the circumstance; because it serves to shew how large a mass of virtuous feeling prevails among the people of England, and how much alive they are to any transactions that appear to violate the morals, or profane the religion of their country.  It is impossible for any one who knows me, or is acquainted with my character, to suppose, that I could have felt any thing like personal hostility against this man.  My sole motive for sending forth these publications, has been to defend and preserve the public morals.  In doing so, I have disregarded all risks, and set all threats at defiance.  The reader may naturally ask whether I have not said enough on this subject already.  I thought so this day week.  Since last Sunday’s publication, however, a volume of new matter, respecting this prophaner of religion and violator of morality has been communicated to me.

Among the recent communications that have been made to me in the course of the week, the following are the more remarkable, and ought to be proclaimed through all parts of the kingdom.  Several persons have been at a loss to know by what authority this man presumed to take upon himself the functions of a minister of the gospel.  They have asked how could a man so profligate—so notoriously criminal, come forth to instruct others in religion.  The question was natural, and I will answer it.  The practice among Dissenters is, that when any man feels a strong desire to become a preacher, he communicates the same to several Ministers, who make strict enquiry into his qualifications as to piety, learning, morals, &c. and if they find these established on satisfactory evidence, they confer on the candidate a sort of ordination, without which he can have no authority to officiate as a minster of the gospel.  I understand that Church did receive some ordination of this kind at the town of Banbury, in Oxfordshire; from which place, as I stated in a former number, he was driven away for his mal-practices.  Since then he has not been under the control, and has acted in defiance of all the ordinances of the Dissenting Church.  He has in fact gone about as a mere isolated adventurer; and I am informed that no minister will preach in any pulpit belonging to him.  Yet he continues to preach, in defiance of Christian, as well as of moral ordinances; because he cannot be silenced by any legal authority, and because he rejects all ecclesiastical government.  This is the reason why I labour to rescue religion from the disgrace which he throws upon it.  And I again ask if it is to be tolerated in a Christian, in a moral country, that a man ordered by the magistrates to be tried for the basest of all crimes, alleged against him on oath, should be suffered to collect an assembly of English subjects around him under pretence of giving them religious instruction?  Is the government to suffer its subjects to be thus contaminated?  The magistrates of Sparta and of Rome (which were heathen nations) would have permitted no such sacrilege as this.

One character peculiar to the person I am speaking of is, that wherever he has been admitted as a preacher, he has disturbed the religious system, and upset the order of the place.  No later than Wednesday last, a gentleman from Colchester called at my office, and told me that he has done so in that town; that he turned the whole congregation against their minister, by preaching doctrines tending to encourage licentiousness, and foster the worst passions.  All persons acquainted with history will recollect, that this mode of healing the consciences of profligate men was practised by the Romish Church before the reformation, and when it flourished in its rankest state of corruption—when indulgences for sins to be committed, and pardon for sins past, were openly sold for money.  The manner in which the Obelisk Preacher conducts the affairs of his chapel bears some resemblance to this practice.  In other places of worship, the practice is, for persons, who have been appointed as trustees, to take charge of all the money collected once a mouth, and after allowing a reasonable remuneration to the minister, apply the remainder to the relief of the poor, and to the repairs of the place.  Hitherto, however, Mr. C— has been in the habit of putting into his own pocket all the money which he has raised by inflaming the passions and exciting hopes and fears.  I am informed that for the purpose of encreasing his revenue, he has even administered the sacrament to persons who were nearly introxicated with gin!!  At present my pen is unable to proceed any further on this most disgusting subject.

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.

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.

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.

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.

POSTCRIPT.

SECOND POSTCRIPT.

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.

[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.