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:—