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.
R. B.
Extract from the Dispatch of May 9, 1813.
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.