_October_ 6, 1816.
“Dear Mrs. Hunter,
“My heart is already too much affected. Your letter only adds
affliction to my bonds. But I forbear. I would have called on you
this morning, but I was too low in mind to speak to any friend but
Jesus! _There_ I am truly comfortable. Pardon me; but I make no
remarks on what you have been told. I must bear it, though I am able
to contradict _three things_ I would rather not. I am only grieved
that dear Mrs. P. whom I really loved, that she should try to injure
me in the estimation of those who are real friends to my dear
children. The thought affects me. Why hurt my poor family? But I
am too much depressed to enlarge. I shall never forget their
kindness. God will reward them, as he has many who have dealt well
to me. But he will resent cruelty in those who have and are still
trying to degrade me. Mrs. P. will live to see it. Dear Mrs.
Hunter, I am grieved at heart I cannot relieve your mind. I am truly
sorry to lose you as a hearer, because your soul has been blest; and
you know both the plague of the heart and the value of Jesus. May he
be increasingly present to you in his person, love, and grace!
Farewell, my dear kind friend! The Lord Jesus will reward you for
your love to me, and your kindness to mine. God is not unrighteous
to forget your work of faith and labour of love. With many tears I
write this. May we meet in glory, when no enemy shall distress my
mind, nor sin nor death shall part us more! I need not remind my
dear friend that I am a _Child_ of _Peculiar Providence_; and that
_heart_ of eternal love, and that _arm_ of invincible power has
protected me—has called me to himself; and for every act of straying,
will correct me with _his own hand_, but will resent _every other
hand_, sooner or later. This you will live to see.
“_Adieu_, _dear friend_, _accept the starting tear_,
_And the best wishes of a heart sincere_.
“Your’s, truly,
“Till we shall meet above.”
_Mr. Marryatt_.—My Lord, that is the case on the part of the prosecution.
MR. GURNEY, on the part of the Defendant, most eloquently addressed the
Jury, endeavouring, by observations, to throw some doubt on the testimony
of the prosecutor, because he had searched the house after the attack:
this, the learned Counsel urged, evinced an uncertainty in the boy’s
mind, as to the person who had been in his room. That his conduct was
unaccountable, in not going into Church’s room and questioning him, when
he had West to assist him. The learned Counsel also commented on the
delay which had taken place before any complaint had been made to a
magistrate, and contended, that this circumstance threw discredit on the
prosecutor’s case, and concluded by observing, that if his client was
guilty, his crime was greatly aggravated, because he, as a Minister of
the Gospel, was bound to set an example of morality, and intreated the
Jury, that as the offence was of so shocking and heinous a nature as to
render it improbable that a man in Mr. Church’s station could have
committed it, that, before they consigned him to eternal infamy, they
would be fully satisfied that the testimony against him was
unquestionable and conclusive.
_The first witness called for the Defendant was_
Mr. JOHN THOMAS _sworn_.
_Examined by the Common Serjeant_.—His name is John Thomas; lives in
Prospect-place, West’s Square, St. George’s Fields; is an appraiser and
undertaker; has known Mr. Church a long time; is one of his hearers; is
acquainted with Mr. Patrick, but not till the report was made respecting
Mr. Church; cannot say he knew him as one of the congregation attending,
Mr. Church; was with Mr. Patrick when he went to Mr. Church’s house, the
9th of October, a few days after the report; did not go into the house
with him, staid outside; had learnt from Mr. Patrick that he was going to
Mr. Church’s upon the subject of this business; he called upon witness,
at his house, to go with him, and told witness he was going to Mr.
Church’s upon the business of this inquiry; indeed, it was witness’s
request that he should; Mrs. Thomas went to speak to his wife, and it was
at Mrs. Thomas’s request and Mrs. Patrick’s that he went; he seemed to be
a long while in Church’s house, not much less than an hour; it was near
an hour; when he came out witness put some questions to him, respecting
what had passed between him and Mr. Church; witness asked him what Mr.
Church had said; he said that Mr. Church did not say anything; that he
seemed very much confounded on account of the cause, he supposed, but he
said nothing about it, that it would be injurious to the cause of God; he
did not say the _cause of God_, witness only supposed he meant the cause
of God; did not use the words “cause of God;” he said Mr. Church seemed
very much confounded or confused. The rest is all imagination of
witness’s; both imagined alike; don’t know that these were exactly the
words; cannot call to his (witness) mind what he (Patrick) did say, but
it was conjectured the cause of God, and which they heard afterwards was
abused abroad; does not recollect all that passed; Mr. Church had not
said anything to Mr. Patrick which Mr. Patrick related to witness; he
said Mr. Church seemed very much confused; witness asked Mr. Patrick
“what do you mean; why; if you know anything against the man, did you not
charge him with it;” he said he did not know; he was not the person; he
(Patrick) said, “I don’t know: I am not so proper a person as you,” or
words to the same effect. Witness said to him, “What did he (meaning
Church) say respecting the report respecting this transaction?” Witness
said to Mr. Patrick, says he, “what did he say respecting the
acknowledging the report”—that is, what did Mr. Church say to Mr. Patrick
about acknowledging the report that had gone abroad respecting him. He
said, “It was false.” Patrick said that the report was false. Witness
never saw Church upon the subject. When Patrick made witness the answer,
he understood that answer to be, that Patrick himself said the report was
false. Witness then put other questions to Mr. Patrick. He said, says
he, what answer did Mr. Church give respecting its having been reported
that he was in liquor—that he made an excuse that he was in liquor? Mr.
Patrick said it was false. He said there had been a great deal of
exaggeration. Did not after this put any question to Mr. Patrick,
whether he, Mr. Patrick, thought that Mr. Church was implicated in the
transaction or not. Witness put these words to him—“Why,” says he, “you
did nothing! Did Mr. Church acknowledge nothing to you?” “No, Sir,”
says he, “he did not.” Then he said Mr. Church had not mentioned a word
about it. Did not make any observation to him, or he to witness. Don’t
recollect any thing in particular witness said, says he, “As you can
bring nothing against him, let us pray for him, and if he had the least
idea of such a thing; and as you say you cannot bring any thing home to
him, and can’t prove any thing, that is all we can do. Let us pray that
he may not be guilty of such sin.”
_Lord Ellenborough_.—Did you say, pray for him, if he was under any such
temptation?—Yes; pray for him, if he was under any such temptation.
Mr. Patrick did not after that deliver any opinion to witness whether he
thought Church was implicated in the transaction or not. Did not at any
other time see him, and hear him say any thing about this transaction.
Nothing more passed at this meeting than what witness has told. Witness
afterwards recollected, and asked pardon: he met Patrick in June last,
coming over Waterloo-bridge. Did not at first know him; and he spoke to
witness, and he said, “My name is Patrick.” Witness said, “Mr. Patrick,
why what are you doing with Mr. Church?” “Why,” says witness, “I hear
you have brought something else against him: what is that?”
_Lord Ellenborough_.—There is no contradiction of Mr. Patrick in this.
He was not asked to this (continuation of the answer). “Why,” says he,
“Sir, I should not have done it, but, that Mr. Church has spoken more
disrespectful things respecting Mrs. Patrick.” He said he should not
have done it, but that Mr. Church had said many disrespectful things of
Mrs. Patrick.
_Cross-examined by Mr. Marryatt_.—Believes it was the Sabbath after the
27th of September that he first heard of this. It was within two or
three days after. Heard of the report two or three days after the thing
happened. Witness was desirous that Mr. Patrick should call on Mr.
Church. He did so, at witness’s desire. Believes Mr. Patrick brought
the boy to him, and offered to have him brought face to face with Mr.
Church. Mr. Patrick called at witness’s house in the course of the
morning, and he sent him, he said the boy was outside. Mr. Patrick did
not particularly wish witness to see the boy; believes he brought the boy
to go to Mr. Church’s; witness was to go with him, and, therefore, the
boy followed. The boy staid outside the door. He walked on the other
side of the way, opposite to where witness was. He waited whilst witness
waited, they both waited outside ready to go into Mr. Church’s when they
were wanted. Mr. Patrick was to go in and hear what Mr. Church had to
say; and then they were to go in too. He took the boy with him, in order
that he might be taken in and see Mr. Church face to face. Witness
supposes that was his intention. Witness had no particular acquaintance
with Mr. Church, was only one of his hearers, and thought it would be too
great a liberty for him to go to him. Mr. Patrick wanted witness to go
in alone to Mr. Church first. Don’t recollect any thing that he did.
Don’t know any other reason he had than that for bringing the boy. Don’t
know that he said that that was his reason. He said he had the boy
there. Witness told Patrick he had no particular interest in the
business; had no intimacy with Mr. Church, except hearing him: thought he
had no business to be interested in the knowledge of the fact, being only
a hearer. Thought, therefore, what his visit would be obtrusive;
certainly had no interest in it. Saw no necessity for going in and
taking the boy, as he, Church, did not acknowledge himself guilty of any
thing bad. Did not examine the boy, it being a delicate subject. If Mr.
Church had confessed any thing, witness should have it thought it his
duty to take the boy and have them face to face. Mr. Church not having
confessed any thing, he would not examine the boy; that was his reason
for not examining the boy. If he had confessed any thing witness would
have taken the boy to have them face to face; his object was to take the
boy and have them face to face, if Mr. Church acknowledged the crime.
When Mr. Patrick came out and said that Mr. Church did not acknowledge
any thing of it he did not think it necessary to have them face to face.
Never spoke to the boy. Never asked the boy about this transaction. Mr.
Patrick never gave any opinion whether Mr. Church was implicated in the
transaction; but in answer to a particular part of the transaction, he
said that Mr. Church asserted that it was false. Did not see the letter
sent to Mrs. Hunter; about the three points of the boy’s statement which
Mr. Church said he was able to contradict.
Mr. JAMES REEVES _sworn_.
_Examined by the Common Sergeant_. Was the Clerk attending the
magistrate when the charge was made before him; must refer to the
book—Witness produced a book to tell who was the magistrate; it was the
minute book in which the entered the proceedings of the day. Mr.
Serjeant Sellon appeared to have been the Magistrate on the 19th
November, as it appears by the book. Being a charge misdemeanor no
account was committed to writing of what the witnesses said; it was
merely a note or entry of the names, as follows; “Warrant for a
misdeameanor, parties appeared by the Officer, and ordered to find bail.”
_Cross-examined by Mr. Marryatt_.—Mr. Serjeant Sellon was the magistrate
by whom the warrant was granted. The oath was administered before the
warrant was granted; there had been an _ex-parte_ examination to grant
the warrant on the oath of the party;—that is in another book left
behind; does not know any thing of it. There is a deposition on oath
prior to the granting of the warrant.
_Re-examined by the Common Serjeant_.—Don’t take the depositions in cases
of misdemeanor in detail. Is not aware of depositions taken in writing
in any book which he had not here; was not told to bring it. There was
nothing taken down in writing before the warrant was granted. After the
warrant was executed, and at the time of the examination, when the
Defendant was there, witness took no minutes further than the names of
the parties, and what he now produced.
Mr. WOOD _sworn_.
_Examined by Mr. Gurney_.—Was present at the examination of Mr. Church
before the magistrate; is a hatter, near the Elephant and Castle, in St.
George’s Fields; did not take the testimony of witnesses down in writing.
Foreman, the boy, in the account he gave before the magistrate, said he
went out to the potter and told the potter that there were thieves in the
house, and that the potter and he said the came to search the house. He
was asked a question by Mr. Sellon, whether or not he searched the room
where Mr. Church slept. He said, no, he did not search that room. Mr.
Sellon said, “Why not search the room?” The answer he gave was, that the
potter wished to break the door open. Mr. Sellon said, “Did you try the
door, to see whether it was open, before the potter talked of breaking it
open?” He said, no; he did not wish to disturb his mistress.
_Mr. Gurney_.—My lord, this is the case of the Defendant.
_Mr. Marryatt_ then replied to the Defendant’s case.
_Lord Ellenborough_ proceeded to sum up the evidence on which he
commented most ably. With respect to the up the evidence, on which he
commented most ably. With respect to the young man searching the house,
his Lordship said it shewed a precaution which was highly creditable to
the boy, who had also given a good reason for not going into the
Defendant’s room, namely, that it must have disturbed and alarmed his
mistress at that unseasonable hour of the night, and that as to the
alleged delay, this seemed to have arisen from the interference of the
Defendant’s friends; but, although a considerable time elapsed before the
prosecutor went to a magistrate, it was clear that he made instant
complaint to West, and to his master. His Lordship then adverted to the
admission of the Defendant as to being in the boy’s room without
assigning any reason or motive, and his Lordship asked, what earthly
purpose could the Defendant have for visiting this youth in his bed-room
in the dead of the night? and, if no honest reason appeared, it was for
the jury to say whether the lad’s account was not irresistably confirmed
by this admission. His Lordship read the letter, before alluded to,
throughout, and most emphatically expressed his indignation at sacred
names, which ought never to be mentioned but with reverence, being used
with disgusting familiarity in such a shocking transaction.
The Jury almost instantly returned a verdict of GUILTY, which gave
universal satisfaction to a crowded Court. The trial occupied four
hours.
_LIFE OF JOHN CHURCH_.
The nearer to CHURCH the further from GOD!! _Old English Proverb_.
Dr. Jortin, in his _Adversaria_, very justly remarks, that “a sudden rise
from a low station, as it sometimes shews to advantage the virtuous and
amiable qualities, which could not exert themselves before, so it more
frequently calls forth and exposes to view, those spots of the soul which
lay lurking in secret, cramped by penury, and veiled with dissimulation.”
JOHN CHURCH, better known as the Obelisk Parson, it appears, was
abandoned by his parents, when he was scarcely six weeks old, and left
exposed in a basket, with little covering to protect him from the
inclemency of the weather, on the steps of St. Andrew’s Church, Holborn.
In this pitiable state he was found by the overseers of the parish, and
sent to the Foundling Hospital; and it was from this circumstance he
derived the name of CHURCH. Here he remained until he was nine years
old, when a complaint to the Governor’s having been made against him by
the nurses that he was addicted to improper and disgusting practices, it
was thought prudent to apprentice him out at that early age, in order to
prevent the morals of the boys being corrupted from so dangerous an
example. He must have quitted the hospital at an earlier age than usual,
from his evident illiteracy, and the badness of his writing. In general
the boys from this institution are distinguished as good scholars.
Church was accordingly placed out as an apprentice to a carver and
gilder, in the neighbourhood of Blackfriar’s Road; but before his time of
servitude had expired, he married, and abruptly quitted his master. For
a short period he followed his business, and worked for a composition
ornament maker, in Tottenham-Court-road; but being of an artful
disposition, of lazy habits, and with much hypocritical cant, he at
length succeeded in imposing upon several religious persons his great
anxiety and desire to become a minister of the Gospel. It appears, he
commenced his _pretended_ religious career, by taking upon himself the
office of a teacher of a sunday school, at that time established in
Tottenham Court-road. Thinking that preaching was a more lucrative
employment than that in which he was engaged, this hypocritical wretch,
together with two other young men, who were also candidates for the gown,
hired a garret in Compton-street, Soho, in order to acquire the method of
addressing a congregation with confidence. He made a rapid progress in
dissimulation, and even at this early period of his religious studies, he
laughed in his sleeve at the credulity and ignorance of those persons who
were induced to listen to his _pious_ harangues. An old chair was the
substitute for the pulpit. He now began, as he termed it, “to gammon the
old women.” Good luck procured him the notice of old Mother Barr, of
Orange-street, who being interested in his behalf, allowed him the use of
a room of her’s, in which he treated her and a few choice labourers in
the field of piety, with his rapturous discourses. From this he used to
hold forth more publicly. He became acquainted with one GARNET, of
notorious memory, who procured him the situation of a preacher at
Banbury. It was at this place that he first became obnoxious. But
before we proceed further, it may be necessary to inquire by what
authority such a man as CHURCH presumed to take upon himself the
functions of a minister of the gospel. A man so profligate—so
notoriously criminal—come forth to instruct others in religion. It
seems, 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 a strict inquiry into his qualifications as to piety,
learning, morals, &c. and if they find these established on satisfactory
evidence, they then confer on the candidate a sort of ordination, without
which he can have no authority to officiate as a minister of the Gospel.
It is evident he must have played the hypocrite in a masterly style, as
he did receive an _ordination_ at Banbury, in Oxfordshire. But his
_real_ character soon made its appearance, from his having made several
violent attempts upon some young men while at the above place, he was
driven out from thence, by the trustees of the chapel in which he
preached, and the magistrates, and ordered never to shew his face there
again. He hastily decamped, leaving behind him his wife and children,
and the police-officers having been sent in pursuit of him, their
searches proved fruitless, and it was a long time before he was heard of.
He then threw off all controul, and acted _in defiance of all the
ordinances of the Dissenting Church_! preaching doctrines tending to
encourage licentiousness, and foster the worst of passions. At
Colchester he turned the whole congregation against their minister. The
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 pardons 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. He has filled his pockets, it appears,
from the money which he has raised by inflaming the passions, and
exciting hopes and fears; this _pretender_ of piety has even administered
the sacrament to persons who were nearly intoxicated with gin! It is
said 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; simplifying, 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 be seems to carry the doctrine of
imputed righteousness of Christ and salvation 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 (says the Encyclopædia) sprung up in England during the protectorate
of Oliver Cromwell, and extended the system of libertinism much further
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.” It may easily be
inferred from such doctrine as the above, the dreadful crime men may be
induced to commit, without the horrors of conscience or fear of
punishment. From his retreat in the country, it seems, he was called to
use his influence in town, by a man of his own disgraceful kind,
designated _Kitty Cambric_; and well known at the Swan, in Vere-street.
It is notorious from the public exposure of the wretches, who were
detected in this street, and brought to punishment, that many of them
assumed the name of women, and were absolutely married together, and it
appears Church was actually the parson who performed the blasphemous mock
ceremony of joining them in the ties of “_holy matrimony_,” he being
nominated their _chaplain_. He now settled himself at Chapel-court, in
the Borough, when his old friend _Garrett_ publicly charged him with a
wicked and diabolical offence, as the law says, “not to be named amongst
Christians,” and he was obliged to run away from the accusation. By some
fortuitous event he, at length, got possession of the Obelisk Chapel,
where he began again to deliver his abominable doctrines; and several
young men were obliged to leave him, in consequence of his having used
them in a manner too indecent to be mentioned or hinted at. The first
document we have is letter dated March 7, 1810, from a person, at
Banbury, named Hall, of which the following is a copy:—
“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 inquire 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, 1817.”
Then follows a letter from William Clark, of Ipswich, a young man between
19 and 20 years of age, which contains an account of attempts to horrid
to be published. The written confession (frightful indeed it is) of this
poor simple young man, whose mind was bewildered by the canting
exhortations of Church; and the whole of his statements corroborated by
the oral testimony of Mr. Wire, who resides at Colchester, and knows
Clark very well. The circumstances related by Clark would have furnished
ample grounds for a criminal prosecution had he made his complaint
_immediately_ after the _assault_ was committed:—but, suffering under the
influence of ignorance and fear, he kept it a secret too long, and
afterwards accepted of a pound note from Church. A case was laid before
two eminent barristers, to have their opinion whether such a prosecution
could be carried on with any prospect of conviction. Their opinion, in
writing, is, that after the long concealment of a charge, a jury would
pay no attention to his evidence, unless he was confirmed in his story by
other evidence.
_Extract from the confession of William Clark_, _of Ipswich_.
“Having been called by Providence to Colchester, I went to hear John
Church preach in a barn, was invited to Mr. Abbot’s; was prevailed
upon to sleep with John Church; I did sleep with him three nights;
after being enticed to many _imprudencies_, 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.
Wm. Clark.
Richard Patmore, J. Ellisdon, C. Wire, H. T. Wire. Witnesses.
P.S. This took place in March last, 1812.”
The peace of this poor lad’s mind is completely destroyed, so fatally has
the event preyed upon him;—so far as to fill the bosom of his aged father
with such a spirit of indignation and revenge, that he actually came up
to London with a full determination to be the death of him who had thus
ruined the peace of his beloved son, while the mother’s mind was not less
distracted than that of the father’s. In consequence of this, the father
entered John Church’s meeting-house, with two loaded pistols, one in each
pocket; but, under the excess of agitation, he fainted away, and was
carried out of the place.