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 Consequence 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.Latham, T.
History
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 Consequence 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.
Latham, T.
Church, J. (John), approximately 1780-approximately 1825 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Sodomy) -- England
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 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 an epithet. His sin has finally found
him out, and it will be impossible for him to escape the penalty due to
it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account