Title: The Rod in Pickle - or, an answer to the appeal of John Church
Author: Latham, T.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Rod in Pickle - or, an answer to the appeal of John Church" ***


Transcribed from the 1817 Hay and Turner edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org

                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]



                                   THE
                              Rod in Pickle;


                         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 conse-
         quence 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_.

                          BY THE REV. T. LATHAM,
                         MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.

      “The nearer to CHURCH the farther from GOD.”—ENGLISH PROVERBS.

                                * * * * *

                                 London:
                 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HAY AND TURNER,
                    No. 11, NEWCASTLE-STREET, STRAND.

                                  1817.

                           _PRICE FOUR-PENCE_.

                                * * * * *



AN ANSWER
TO THE
_APPEAL of JOHN CHURCH_,
&c. &c. &c.


THERE is something so ungenerous in assailing a fallen foe—something so
outrageous to humanity—that nothing but an imperative and paramount sense
of duty to the public, could induce the Publishers of the following
details, to notice the contents of “an Appeal to the Candid Public,” by
John Church.  Unfortunately for him, unfortunately for the practice he
has espoused, his own account is sufficient to condemn him; so that it
might justly be said of him—“Out of thine own mouth I judge thee, thou
worker of Iniquity!”  What, indeed, do his exculpations mean?  Every
where he intimates his proneness to the hateful and unpardonable sin of
backsliding.  But still he backslides in his sleep.  Unknowing
transgressor!  What would society say of that female, who, acknowledging
that she had been seduced, should pretend that her seduction was effected
in her sleep?

Professors like Church are the bane of christianity.  They are tares
among the wheat.  Jesus may be in their mouths, penitence and pardon
their prayers, but their practice is that of Satan!

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.

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:—

It appears that Mr. Church, while at Banbury, was very popular as a
preacher; he seemed fond of preaching at many places round the
neighbourhood, and was always well received: among other places, he was
in the habit of preaching at Kingham, at which place he was held in very
high esteem, and had many marks of the peoples’ favour.  He had made an
engagement to go to Birmingham; but a few days before he set off for that
place, Mr. T. Gardenner also received a letter, from a gentleman at
Kingham, at whose house Mr. Church was usually entertained, directed for
Mr. Church, requesting that it should be delivered into his own hand and
to no other person.  Mr. T. Gardenner accordingly waited on him, and put
it into his hand; on opening it he changed countenance; on reading
further he became quite confused, and appeared very much agitated and
alarmed, but endeavoured to conceal it as much as possible.  Mr.
Gardenner perceiving this, requested an explanation.  This he obtained by
Church shewing him the contents of the letter: this letter, it seems,
reprimanded his indelicate conduct towards two boys in the family, the
gentleman’s son and a servant boy, who had both, at his request, been his
bed-fellows in their turns; and finally it forbid his coming to preach at
Kingham again.  Mr. Gardenner, thunder-struck at this, entreated him to
go directly to Kingham and clear up the point, which Church said had no
foundation but in the falsehood and malice of the boys; but Church
declined going, alleging that it was of little consequence what two false
boys would say, and that his going to Kingham would derange his plan of
going to Birmingham, and that by the time he returned the rumour would be
done away.  Mr. Gardenner thought otherwise, and used every argument to
prevail on him to go, offering to accompany him with other friends to
clear him if possible, before the report got farther abroad.—However, he
still _refused going with his friends_, but promised to call and settle
the business himself as he went to Birmingham.  This he did not do, but
took his journey to Birmingham, leaving all in the greatest confusion
among his friends at Kingham and Banbury.  The report quickly spread, and
such was the popular indignation, that it was found necessary to keep the
Meeting-house shut up, as both that and the persons who had attended it
were in danger, from the insults of the enraged people of the town; the
people were hooted and shouted at in the streets, and branded with the
opprobrious name of S—m—s; the same was written upon the doors, walls,
and window-shutters of the place of worship, and fears were entertained
that the Chapel would have been burnt or pulled down.  Messrs. J. and T.
Gardenner now went over to Kingham to investigate the whole affair, the
particulars of which are as follows:—It appeared that whenever Church had
occasion to sleep from home he always wished to have a man or boy to
sleep with him.  At Kingham he sometimes slept with the son of a
gentleman, who always made him welcome to his house when at that place,
whom he used to clasp round the neck, after preaching, and say to him,
“_Come_, _now_, _you must be my bed-fellow to-night_.”  But the son at
length refusing to be his bed-fellow, he had the servant boy in his
place, for as yet nothing was suspected; at length both of them refused
sleeping with Mr. Church; and when the reason was demanded, the son said
“I don’t like to deep with Mr. Church, because he always — on me in bed;”
the boy said “I don’t like sleeping with Mr. Church, because he — me so
much.”  From this rustic and simple statement of the boys the inference
was easily drawn; and as the boys at every examination told the same
tale, both when examined by the gentleman of the house, by Messrs.
Gardenners’, and also from Mr. Church’s refusing to go to Kingham, and
from many things that now came out in different quarters, as well as from
many things in Mr. Church’s letter, no doubt remained but that he had
acted imprudently and indelicately, to speak in no more glaring terms;
and the people at Banbury thought they were fully justified in disowning
him for their Minister, and all the neighbourhood was of the same
opinion.

It was now called to mind at other places where Mr. Church was in the
habit of sleeping, though some of them not so distant from home but that
he might have returned with ease after preaching, that he has invariably
wanted a bed-fellow, and it is affirmed that he has gone to seek for a
farmer’s boy, or any one he could get, and apologised for bringing in a
bed-fellow, by saying he was apt to be troubled with a lowness of spirits
in the night after the fatigue of walking and preaching, and that he
always preferred a bed-fellow for company in the night: he was also in
the habit of taking a person of very low character with him from Banbury
to be his bed-fellow; this person was a porter there, and the people were
at a loss for the cause of such intimacy.  However, when the reports
began to spread, this person was missing from Banbury, and was not heard
of all the time I was there, which was looked upon as a circumstance that
indicated nothing very favourable to Mr. Church.  Another thing which was
also interpreted in an unfavourable light was, that Mr. Church had made
companions of several buckish young men in Banbury, and had frequently
amused himself with seeing them naked, washing in a river or pond, and
that he had been in their company at very unseasonable hours at night.
There was also a young man a hair dresser, apprentice to Mr. Hall, who
attended Church to dress and shave him, and when he was about this
business, Church used to take many indecent liberties with him.  The
young man was much disgusted, but did not expose him till other things
came out.  I was also informed by James Hall, grocer, a young man of
serious principles, and who was in connection with Mr. Westley’s people,
that being at a public association, at Warwick, if I recollect the place
right, that having to stay all night, Mr. Church was very importunate
with him to take a part of the bed which he had engaged, and would hardly
admit of a denial; and when Mr. Hall positively refused to be his
bed-fellow, Mr. Church appeared quite offended at his refusal.

As soon as Messrs. T. and J. Gardenner returned from inquiring into the
affair at Kingham, and had reported the testimony of the boys and others
to the people at Banbury, it was concluded to write to Church at
Birmingham, and inform him of the result of their inquiries, and to let
him know they disowned him as their Minister, desiring him at the same
time not to return to Banbury on any account.  The letter he sent in
answer to theirs was made up of concessions and apologies,
self-criminations and excuses, half confessions, evasive retractions of
those confessions, and evidently showed his mind while writing it to be
much agitated.  Some of his own words are: “I have done foolishly—I have
acted most imprudently; O! how I have wounded the dear cause of God at
Banbury:—O! it breaks my very heart to think how I have given the enemies
of the blessed Gospel cause to blaspheme on my account:—O! how I have
abused the kindness of the best of friends:—O! if it be possible, don’t
let the cause be known of my being absent from Banbury: you may say I am
gone on a journey, and you will speak the truth; but, oh! my dear
friends, I must return to you again; I cannot think of parting with you;
do say that I may return; I must, indeed I must, or I shall die with
grief.”  Elsewhere he says, “the boys tell a _simple plain story_, and
you do _right to believe them_ in what they say; and I own that I have
been too imprudent, _but I am not conscious of having done the actual
crime_; if any thing of that nature has been of which they speak, it must
have been without my knowledge, when I was asleep, and supposing I was in
my own bed with my wife; but I know of no criminal intention or act,
except in this way.”  The letter runs all in this strain, with frequent
petitions to be permitted to return, and almost insisting on that being
granted.  To this he had an answer sent from the principals of the
congregation, in which, after treating the subject in a suitable manner,
they tell him:—“You must not by any means or on any account whatever
think of returning to Banbury, for we assure you that such is the
abhorrence in which the crime you are accused of, is held by the people
in Banbury, that were you to presume to come, neither your person nor the
Meeting would be in safety.”

After this a letter was received from Mr. Burton, of Warwick, stating,
that he had at last prevailed upon Church to accompany him to Kingham,
and that he had examined the boys before Church, who told the same story
as before, when all that he offered as an excuse was, that “it was
possible for such things to have happened when he was asleep;” and that
Church appeared to him deeply sensible of and humble for his imprudent
conduct.  What Church wished to be understood by imprudent conduct was
this, he is afflicted with a rupture, and grants that he had asked his
bed-fellows either to look at or feel the difference of the rupture at
night after preaching and in the morning after a night’s rest.  About the
same time that Mr. Burton wrote to Banbury, as mentioned above, Church
also wrote, and in this letter he acknowledges that the boys kept to
their story in his presence, but excuses himself as before—that what
passed was when he was asleep, and that the boys owned to him that they
neither of them spoke a word to him at the time those things happened.
He also owns that he had been carried too much away with the vain desire
of popularity, and lifted up with pride by the caresses of the people,
and that the Lord had suffered this trial to befal him to humble him and
empty him of self; that he now saw and lamented his folly; he
acknowledges that he had been too gay and trifling, and too fond of
young, light, and trifling company, with a great deal more
self-crimination; then he proceeds to draw up a long set of rules for his
future conduct, and promises, if restored to Banbury, to forsake the
company of the young, and associate with the aged and grave—to revere
their counsel and advice—to receive kindly their seasonable admonitions
and rebukes—to give up the pursuit of popularity—to be content at home
among his own people—to abandon all village preaching, and never again to
sleep out of his own bed, nor away from his wife—and, in short, to change
his conduct all through.  He also tells them how much he feels interested
in their welfare, and proposes to send them a supply for a season; but
begs them, for God’s sake, _not to let the real cause of his expulsion be
made known_.  In concluding he hopes that his confessions, promises of
amendment, and professions of repentance will, at length, restore him to
Banbury.

The last letter Mr. Church wrote to Banbury, from Birmingham, was to
arrange some matters about his family following him up to London; and
appears to have been written in great hurry and confusion.  I have made
but one extract from that, which is as follows:—He says to Mr. T.
Gardenner, to whom he wrote, “They have been, (alluding, I suppose, to
some persons from Kingham, having been at Warwick) and brought the
accounts hither, and have set all the people in such confusion about me,
so that a dear _friend of mine_, _who was apprehensive_ for my personal
safety, set off from thence, late as it was, and arrived here
(Birmingham) at a very late hour, and his coming has thrown the whole
family where I am into such confusion and disorder, that it was judged
prudent for me to leave the town immediately, which I shall do
accordingly, without delay.  Look after my wife and the dear children,
send her up by the first coach to London; she knows where to find me in
town.”

I shall now give some account of the proceedings of the people at
Banbury, as to drawing up the statement to be sent up to London, and the
reason why it was kept back, after it was drawn up and written out by me,
at the request of the people there.  In the first place, every letter was
copied verbatim, in the regular order in which they had passed between
Mr. Church and them.  To these was annexed a preliminary address, in the
name of the principals of the congregation; the particulars already
mentioned were stated, the various charges alledged, and then the
conclusion they drew from the whole, which was couched in the following
terms:—“We do not pretend to charge Mr. Church with having actually, and
in the full extent of the thing, been guilty of the odious offence laid
to his charge; but from the whole tenure of his conduct, his letters, and
the various things that appear in evidence, we are constrained to
believe, that he has discovered a most detestable propensity that way;
and if what you receive in these documents are not sufficient proof to
you of the same; if you choose to be at the expense of it, we can send
you up a whole coach load of living witnesses to the same facts.”—Thus
far the business had proceeded: all the papers were drawn up in order,
and it only remained for them to be properly signed by the parties who
were principally concerned in the investigation, particularly by the
deacons of the church; in order to this they were read at a meeting of
those parties, and generally approved.  Messrs. J. and T. Gardenners,
actually and readily signed their names to them; but Mr. Lambart, the
acting deacon, positively refused to give his signature, and without it
they could not be properly considered as the Churches act.  At this, the
other parties were very much displeased, but could not prevail on Mr.
Lambart, by any means, to sign his name.  The reason he alledged for not
doing it was this, Mr. Church was indebted to him sixteen or seventeen
pounds, and he said, that if those papers appeared in London against him,
his friends there must all forsake him; and then he, Mr. Lambart, must
loose his money, which he could not afford to do; and, therefore, until
he had got that he would sign nothing against him; though, when he had
got his money he did not care if Church was hanged; this much I heard Mr.
Lambart assert.  This caused a demur, and though the other parties all
wished the papers to go, they could not without Mr. Lambart’s name, for
the reason mentioned above.  After some deliberations and consultations,
it was represented by some, that they were likely to get into a deal of
trouble if those papers were sent to London: that if Mr. Church was taken
into custody, and had to undergo an examination, that they should have to
attend as witnesses; and as they could not foresee all the inconveniences
that might ensue both to themselves and also to Church; and as they had
now done with him as their Minister, they finally agreed to suppress the
papers, and leave him to get on in London in the best manner he could.

After my engagement at Banbury was fulfilled, I returned home; but when
arrived in London, before the coach reached the inn at which it was to
stop, a person called to the coachman, and inquired for my name; the
coachman stopped and asked, if any passenger in the coach answered to
that name: I answered, and was requested by the unknown person to
accompany him to James’s-street, Covent-garden, where the congregation
and minister were waiting for me, and would not proceed until I arrived.
This appeared singular to me, but, guessing the reason, I went with him
to the place.  As soon as I arrived the service went on, and at the close
of the sermon, the preacher addressed the people; and, pointing to me,
told them that I was just come up from Banbury, where I had been a month
with the people that Mr. Church had left, and that from me they might
have a true account of what had passed.  Then he spoke to me: “Do, dear
brother, stand up and tell the people what you know about this affair;”
and, having thus spoke, sat him down.  All eyes were now on me, and I was
obliged to rise and say something: I told the people I found myself
awkwardly situated—just come from the coach—my thoughts uncollected on
the subject—and an entire stranger both to them and Mr. Church, whom I
had never seen; I wished to speak with caution—though I must confess that
at Banbury there were reports in circulation very unfavourable to him,
and proofs of his having acted with imprudence and indiscretion.  I then
mentioned what was said by the boys at Kingham, and begged to be excused
from saying more.  The Minister then made a very warm harrangue to the
people at some length, and so the business terminated at that time.

The next evening I preached at a certain place in London, and after
sermon the two Deacons of the place requested me to attend them to
Rehoboath Chapel, where I was again interrogated by a Mr. White and
another Minister.  I told them some particulars which they seemed to get
over very well.  They then shewed me a letter, and asked me if I knew the
hand writing, which I did.  Strange as it may appear, this letter was
from a person who was present at the meeting at Banbury, before
mentioned, in answer to one they had wrote to him, in which he exonerated
Mr. Church from every thing but a little imprudence in getting into debt,
saying he was a good preacher, a good father, and a good husband, and
adds, when you see him give my kind love to him.

Some months after this, when Mr. Church was at Chapel Court Meeting, I
accepted of an invitation to take tea with Mr. Harper, proprietor of that
Meeting.  Mr. Niven went with me; upon Mr. Harper expressing a wish to be
informed of every particular relative to the Banbury business, I said but
little then; but observed that I should not have the least objection
provided Mr. Church was present.  This was agreed to, and a meeting was
held in the vestry of Chapel-court Meeting.  Here, for the first time, I
saw Mr. Church.  Mr. Love, Mr. Niven, Mr. Harper, Mr. Burbridge, and some
others were present.  Mr. Church and I were total strangers to each
other; but in the presence of the meeting, I stated every particular that
I have written in these pages; and the parties present all listened to
the account.  When I had done, I asked Mr. Church if I had done him any
wrong?  He said, he believed I had given a true statement; he also
acknowledged the quotations from his letters to be correct.  After this I
heard him preach two evening Lectures in Chapel-court, and spoke to him
and Mr. Burbridge, and this is all the acquaintance I ever had with him.
I thought proper to mention these things in the presence of Mr. Church,
that all who read this (now made public) may be assured they have a
correct account of nothing more than what Mr. Church has acknowledged
correct before so many witnesses.  And I considered it needful to state
my very slight knowledge of him, because some persons account of my being
so often called upon to speak about him, have tried to make it out that I
was an intimate acquaintance of his.  But I hope that is sufficiently
proved to be a false representation.  I have made no comment on any part
of the subject, nor do I intend to make any: every person must read and
think for himself, and put that construction on the whole that appears
most natural to him.  Some will, perhaps, say why did you never make
these things public before?  I answer because I did not till now see it
proper.  And others will say, why keep the secret so long, and now
divulge it after all?  I answer, such I kept it while I thought it right
to do so, and make it public for the satisfaction of those who wish to
know both the beginning and conclusion of the whole matter.

                                                                     T. L.

                                * * * * *

                   Just Published, Price Two Shillings.

THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF JOHN CHURCH, the Preacher or the Surrey
Tabernacle, Borough Road, at the Surrey Assizes, at Croyden, on Saturday,
the 16th of August, 1817, for an Assault with Intent to Commit an
UNNATURAL CRIME.  Taken in Short Hand, by a Barrister.  The profits
arising from this Publication will be given to the Prosecutor to assist
in defraying the expenses of the Prosecution.  London: Printed and
Published by Hay and Turner, 11, Newcastle Street, Strand; and may be had
of W. Wright, Marsh-gate, Lambeth, and all Booksellers in Town and
Country.

                                * * * * *

   Also, Just published, price Fourpence (entered at Stationers’ Hall),
                   HAY AND TURNER’S GENUINE EDITION OF

THE INFAMOUS LIFE OF JOHN CHURCH, the St. George’s Fields Preacher, from
his Infancy up to his Trial and Conviction.  With HIS CONFESSION, sent in
a letter to the Rev. Mr. L—, two days after his Attack on Adam Foreman,
at Vauxhall; with Remarks on it, by the same Gentleman.  To which are
added, HIS LOVE EPISTLES TO E— B—; with various other Letters,
particularly one to Cook, of Vere-street Notoriety!

Printed and published by Hay and Turner, No. 11, Newcastle-street,
Strand; and may be had of all Booksellers.—None are Genuine but those
published by Hay and Turner, they having the Original Letters in their
possession.

                                * * * * *

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           Hay and Turner, Printers, Newcastle-Street, Strand.



FOOTNOTES.


{5}  We are informed that Church belongs to that sect called ANTINOMIANS,
which is that 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 was one of the
    essential and distinctive characters of the elect that they cannot do
    any thing displeasing to God, or prohibited by Law.”

{7}  Though Mr. Garrett wrote to me I had never seen him but once in my
whole life, but he knew I was at Banbury.

{8}  This Meeting was held at the house of Mr. Hall, at Banbury, whose
letter will be found in page 8, of the Life of Church, published by us.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Rod in Pickle - or, an answer to the appeal of John Church" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.