“I was desired once more to go to Gomersal Field House to speak to Mr. Ingham. When I got there, David Taylor was with him, and spoke kindly to me. When Mr. Taylor was gone, Mr. Ingham began to talk to me about making division among the Brethren. I told him, I did not want to make division; I wanted the people to be saved. He said, ‘We cannot receive you or Mr. Wesley into our community[86]till he publicly declares he has printed false doctrine, and you declare you have preached false.’ I said, ‘Wherein?’ He then burst out into laughter, and said, ‘In telling the people they may live without committing sin.’[87]I replied, ‘Do you call that false doctrine?’ He answered, ‘I do, I do; and Mr. Wesley has written false doctrine, teaching the same errors.’ He quoted some words; then I said, ‘They are not Mr. Wesley’s, but St John’s words; it is St. John who says, “Let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, and he that committeth sin is of the devil.” So, if St. John be right, every one who preacheth contrary to what Mr. Wesley has written here, and what I have preached, is a deceiver and betrayer of souls.’ ‘If that be your opinion,’ said Mr. Ingham, ‘we cannot receive you into our Church.’ I replied, ‘I don’t want to be one of you, for I am a member of the Church of England.’ He answered, ‘The Church of England is no Church; we are the Church.’ I said, ‘We! Whom do you mean?’ He replied, ‘I and the Moravian Brethren.’ I said, ‘I have no desire to have any fellowship with you or them; it has been better for my soul since I have been wholly separated from you, and God has blessed my labours more since I was told, they had delivered me up to Satan, than ever before; therefore, I think it better to have their curse than to have communion with them.’ He replied, ’ If you think so, I have no more to say to you;’ and then, he turned his back on me.”
“I was desired once more to go to Gomersal Field House to speak to Mr. Ingham. When I got there, David Taylor was with him, and spoke kindly to me. When Mr. Taylor was gone, Mr. Ingham began to talk to me about making division among the Brethren. I told him, I did not want to make division; I wanted the people to be saved. He said, ‘We cannot receive you or Mr. Wesley into our community[86]till he publicly declares he has printed false doctrine, and you declare you have preached false.’ I said, ‘Wherein?’ He then burst out into laughter, and said, ‘In telling the people they may live without committing sin.’[87]I replied, ‘Do you call that false doctrine?’ He answered, ‘I do, I do; and Mr. Wesley has written false doctrine, teaching the same errors.’ He quoted some words; then I said, ‘They are not Mr. Wesley’s, but St John’s words; it is St. John who says, “Let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, and he that committeth sin is of the devil.” So, if St. John be right, every one who preacheth contrary to what Mr. Wesley has written here, and what I have preached, is a deceiver and betrayer of souls.’ ‘If that be your opinion,’ said Mr. Ingham, ‘we cannot receive you into our Church.’ I replied, ‘I don’t want to be one of you, for I am a member of the Church of England.’ He answered, ‘The Church of England is no Church; we are the Church.’ I said, ‘We! Whom do you mean?’ He replied, ‘I and the Moravian Brethren.’ I said, ‘I have no desire to have any fellowship with you or them; it has been better for my soul since I have been wholly separated from you, and God has blessed my labours more since I was told, they had delivered me up to Satan, than ever before; therefore, I think it better to have their curse than to have communion with them.’ He replied, ’ If you think so, I have no more to say to you;’ and then, he turned his back on me.”
Thus did Ingham fully and finally sever himself from the Methodists. Nelson continued preaching; souls were saved; and, in 1742, Wesley, for the first time, visited the Birstal stonemason. After giving an account how Nelson was led to begin to preach, and of his success, Wesley adds:—
“Mr. Ingham hearing of this, came to Birstal, inquired into the facts, talked with John himself, and examined him in the closest manner, both touching his knowledge and spiritual experience; after which he encouraged him to proceed; and pressed him, as often as he had opportunity, to come to any of the places where himself had been, and speak to the people as God should enable him. But he soon gave offence, both by his plainness of speech, and by advising the people to go to church and sacrament. Mr. Ingham reproved him: and, finding him incorrigible, forbad any that were in his societies to hear him. But, being persuaded this is the will of God concerning him, he continues to this hour working in the day, that he may be burdensome to no man; and, in the evening, ‘testifying the truth as it is in Jesus.’”[88]
“Mr. Ingham hearing of this, came to Birstal, inquired into the facts, talked with John himself, and examined him in the closest manner, both touching his knowledge and spiritual experience; after which he encouraged him to proceed; and pressed him, as often as he had opportunity, to come to any of the places where himself had been, and speak to the people as God should enable him. But he soon gave offence, both by his plainness of speech, and by advising the people to go to church and sacrament. Mr. Ingham reproved him: and, finding him incorrigible, forbad any that were in his societies to hear him. But, being persuaded this is the will of God concerning him, he continues to this hour working in the day, that he may be burdensome to no man; and, in the evening, ‘testifying the truth as it is in Jesus.’”[88]
This is a long account; but not without interest; inasmuch as it furnishes a glimpse of the way in which Ingham parted with the Methodists, and of the beginnings of both Moravianism and Methodism in the north of England. We only add, that, though Ingham passed through Birstal during Wesley’s visit, there was no interview between them.[89]Thus was an old and close friendship severed.
It has been already stated, that, the differences between Ingham and Nelson probably occurred in 1741; and that Wesley’s visit to Birstal took place in 1742. This, in some respects, was the most important period in Ingham’s life.
Far away from the miserable strifes of the Moravians in London, we find him, in 1740, an humble, happy, loving, useful Christian. The following letter is simple and beautiful:—
“Osset,September 20, 1740.“My Dear Brother,—I have not heard anything of you this long time. As to myself, I am exceeding happy.[90]The Lord Jesus, my dear Redeemer, is abundantly gracious and bountiful towards me. I have, and do daily taste of His goodness. I am ashamed before Him; I am so very unworthy, and He is so very kind and merciful. My heart melts within me, at the thoughts of Him. He is all love. I am a sinful, helpless worm.“In Yorkshire, the Lord still keeps carrying on His work. Many souls are truly awakened: some have obtained mercy. The enemies are engaged against us; but the Lord is our helper. We have great peace, and love, and unity amongst ourselves. We have no differences, no divisions, no disputings. May He, who is the giver of every good and perfect gift, grant us always to be like-minded; and may we and our friends grow in grace, and increase in love towards one another, that, by this mark, all men may know that we belong to Christ!“I remain your affectionate, though unworthy brother,“B. Ingham.”[91]
“Osset,September 20, 1740.
“My Dear Brother,—I have not heard anything of you this long time. As to myself, I am exceeding happy.[90]The Lord Jesus, my dear Redeemer, is abundantly gracious and bountiful towards me. I have, and do daily taste of His goodness. I am ashamed before Him; I am so very unworthy, and He is so very kind and merciful. My heart melts within me, at the thoughts of Him. He is all love. I am a sinful, helpless worm.
“In Yorkshire, the Lord still keeps carrying on His work. Many souls are truly awakened: some have obtained mercy. The enemies are engaged against us; but the Lord is our helper. We have great peace, and love, and unity amongst ourselves. We have no differences, no divisions, no disputings. May He, who is the giver of every good and perfect gift, grant us always to be like-minded; and may we and our friends grow in grace, and increase in love towards one another, that, by this mark, all men may know that we belong to Christ!
“I remain your affectionate, though unworthy brother,
“B. Ingham.”[91]
If Ingham and John Nelson had been left to themselves, Ingham’s prayer for continued unity might have been answered; but Ingham wished for Toltschig, one of the ministerial chiefs among the London Moravians; and Toltschig doubtless went.
“We, in London,” writes James Hutton, “cannot spare Toltschig until Spangenberg comes to us. We here all think he will be useful to Ingham and the souls there. They must seize the opportunity presented. The souls in Yorkshire are more simple-hearted than those in London, where they are more knowing; and they do not, like those in town, quibble at every word. Toltschig is known in Yorkshire, where the souls love him, and he can speak to them with confidence. We want a thorough brother, fundamentally correct, and of large experience, for the souls in London, able to attend our bands and conferences, and to address our meetings. Toltschig is very well in bands and conferences, but he cannot preach.”[92]
“We, in London,” writes James Hutton, “cannot spare Toltschig until Spangenberg comes to us. We here all think he will be useful to Ingham and the souls there. They must seize the opportunity presented. The souls in Yorkshire are more simple-hearted than those in London, where they are more knowing; and they do not, like those in town, quibble at every word. Toltschig is known in Yorkshire, where the souls love him, and he can speak to them with confidence. We want a thorough brother, fundamentally correct, and of large experience, for the souls in London, able to attend our bands and conferences, and to address our meetings. Toltschig is very well in bands and conferences, but he cannot preach.”[92]
Did Toltschig carry the cantankerous contagion of the London Moravians with him? We cannot tell; but there can be no question, that, the “simple-hearted” Yorkshire brethren caught it; and, that, in Yorkshire, as in London, a schism among the Moravians led to the formation of the society of Methodists.
Indeed, it is a curious fact, that, for a season, the spirit of discord, among nearly the whole of the new religionists, seemed rampant. No man ever lived who sighed for peace more ardently than Whitefield. His large and loving heart had room enough for every man. The language of the Psalmist’s pen was pre-eminently the language of Whitefield’s life: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions’ sake, I will now say, Peace be within thee.” And, yet, at this very time,as if to make bad things worse, the quarrel, between the London Moravians and Methodists, was followed by the quarrel between Wesley and Whitefield, respecting Wesley’s sermon on “Free Grace;” and, to complete the whole, and to make the confusion more confounded, the Yorkshire converts, so far away from the strifeful scene, began disputing; and the frank, warm-hearted Ingham began to regard his old friend Wesley with a suspicious eye, and presumptuously tried to annul John Nelson’s divine commission to act as an evangelist among his neighbours!
Ingham’s objection to Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification has been already mentioned; but, besides this, there were other points of difference. Wesley writes:—
“1741. August 1.—I had a long conversation with Mr. Ingham. We both agreed,—1. That none shall finally be saved, who have not, as they had opportunity, done all good works; and, 2. That if a justified person does not do good, as he has opportunity, he will lose the grace he has received; and, if he ‘repent’ not, ‘and do the former works,’ will perish eternally. But with regard to the unjustified (if I understand him), we wholly disagreed. He believed, it is not the will of God, that, we should wait for faith in doing good. I believe, this is the will of God; and that, they will never find Him, unless they seek Him in this way.”
“1741. August 1.—I had a long conversation with Mr. Ingham. We both agreed,—1. That none shall finally be saved, who have not, as they had opportunity, done all good works; and, 2. That if a justified person does not do good, as he has opportunity, he will lose the grace he has received; and, if he ‘repent’ not, ‘and do the former works,’ will perish eternally. But with regard to the unjustified (if I understand him), we wholly disagreed. He believed, it is not the will of God, that, we should wait for faith in doing good. I believe, this is the will of God; and that, they will never find Him, unless they seek Him in this way.”
Again:—
“1742, August 3.—I preached at Mirfield, where I found Mr. Ingham had been an hour before. Great part of the day, I spent in speaking with those who have tasted the powers of the world to come; by whose concurrent testimony I find, that, Mr. Ingham’s method to this day is,—1. To endeavour to persuade them, that they are in a delusion, and have indeed no faith at all: if this cannot be done, then, 2. To make them keep it to themselves; and, 3. To prevent them going to the church or sacrament; at least to guard them from having any reverence, or expecting to find any blessing in those ordinances of God. In the evening, I preached at Adwalton, a mile from Birstal. After preaching, and the next day, I spoke with more, who had, or sought for, redemption through Christ; all of whom I perceived had been advised also, to put their light under a bushel; or to forsake the ordinances of God, in order to find Christ.”[93]
“1742, August 3.—I preached at Mirfield, where I found Mr. Ingham had been an hour before. Great part of the day, I spent in speaking with those who have tasted the powers of the world to come; by whose concurrent testimony I find, that, Mr. Ingham’s method to this day is,—1. To endeavour to persuade them, that they are in a delusion, and have indeed no faith at all: if this cannot be done, then, 2. To make them keep it to themselves; and, 3. To prevent them going to the church or sacrament; at least to guard them from having any reverence, or expecting to find any blessing in those ordinances of God. In the evening, I preached at Adwalton, a mile from Birstal. After preaching, and the next day, I spoke with more, who had, or sought for, redemption through Christ; all of whom I perceived had been advised also, to put their light under a bushel; or to forsake the ordinances of God, in order to find Christ.”[93]
Ingham’s wish to prevent persecution has been noticed. On this ground, he requested Nelson and other exhorters to desist from preaching for a month. What led to this? Perhaps, the publication, in 1740, of a furious pamphlet of eighty-four pages, with the following title: “The Impostureof Methodism displayed; in a Letter to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Dewsbury and Occasioned by the Rise of a certain Modern Sect of Enthusiasts, (among them,) called Methodists. By William Bowman, M.A., Vicar of Dewsbury and Aldborough in Yorkshire, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Charles Earl of Hoptoun.”
This pastorly letter was avowedly written against the Methodists; but the reverend author, like many others at the time, employed an inappropriate word; for, at that period, there were no Methodists at all, either in Yorkshire or any other part of the north of England. His letter is dated, “Aldbrough, August 15, 1740”; whereas, John Nelson, the beginner of northern Methodism, did not commence preaching to his neighbours for several months after this.[94]The Vicar of DewsburymeantMoravians; but, for reasons of his own, he preferred to use the word Methodists.
Terrible was the anger which Ingham and his coadjutors had excited in the Christian breast of their reverend neighbour. The pamphlet is a rarity, and, perhaps, a condensed account of it may be welcome.
It is a curious fact, that, the writer, while professing so much interest in the spiritual welfare of his flock, acknowledges, that, “for the greatest part of his time,” he is “absent and remote from them.” He is, however, notwithstanding this, greatly distressed on account of “the impious spirit of enthusiasm and superstition, which has of late crept in among” them, “and which sadly threatens a total ruin and destruction of all religion and virtue.” Indeed, he had himself been, “in some measure, an eye-witness of this monstrous madness, and religious frenzy, which introduced nothing but a confused and ridiculous medley of nonsense and inconsistency.” It was true, that, “at present, the contagion was pretty much confined to the dregs and refuse of the people,—the weak, unsteady mob;” but, then, the mob was so numerous in the west of Yorkshire, that, the danger was greater than was apprehended. He next proceeds to review “some of the chief doctrines” of “these modern visionaries,” which he will not now determinewhether, “like the Quakers,” they “are a sect hatched and fashioned in a seminary of Jesuits; or whether, like the German Anabaptists, they are a set of crazy, distempered fanatics.” “The first and chief principle they inculcated was, thatthey are divinely and supernaturally inspired by the Holy Ghost, to declare the will of God to mankind.” Mr. Bowman attempts to demolish this “high and awful claim,” and to demonstrate, that, its assertors are “a set of idiots or madmen,” “only worthy of a dark corner in Bedlam, or the wholesome correction of Bridewell.” “Another principle doctrine of these pretended pietists was, that,for the sake of a further Reformation, it was not only lawful, but incumbent on the people, to separate from their proper ministers, and adhere to them.” In refuting this barefaced heresy, the Dewsbury vicar, quotes, at considerable length, in the Greek and Latin languages, (which probably not half-a-dozen of his parishioners understood), the testimonies of Clemens Romanus, St. Ignatius, St Cyprian, St. Austin, and Irenæus,—on “the necessity of Church unity.” He admits, “that, all the clergymen of reputation in the neighbourhood” of Dewsbury, had “refused these Methodists the use of their pulpits;” but he was glad of this; and says “this was not done till, by their extravagant flights and buffooneries, they had made the church more like a bear-garden than the house of God; and the rostrum nothing else but the trumpet of sedition, heresy, blasphemy, and everything destructive to religion and good manners.” “A third mark of imposture propagated by these mad devotionalists was,that it was lawful and expedient for mere laymen, for women, and the meanest and most ignorant mechanics, to minister in the Church of Christ, to preach and expound the word of God, and to offer up the prayers of the congregation in public assemblies.” To refute this, Mr. Bowman favours his parishioners with a lengthy dissertation on the three orders, bishops, presbyters, and deacons; and comes to the charitable conclusion, that, the Methodists are “the most impious cheats and impostors.” “A fourth doctrine of these enthusiasts was, that, it is possible for a man to live without sin; that themselves actually do so; and that regeneration, or the new birth, necessary to salvation, consistsin an absolute and entire freedom from all kind of sin whatsoever.” Mr. Bowman asserts, that, “intolerable pride and presumption is the foundation of this unhappy delusion.” “A fifth mark of imposture was, that cruel, uncharitable, and consequently unchristian doctrine,which denounces eternal death and damnation on all, who cannot conform to the ridiculous sentiments of these mad devotionalists.” And a sixth was, “that, in order to be true Christians, we are absolutely to abandon and renounce all worldly enjoyments and possessions whatsoever; to have all things in common amongst one another; and entirely neglect everything in this life, but prayer and meditation; to be always upon our knees, and at our devotions.”
Such were the six charges of the Vicar of Dewsbury. They consist of a little truth enveloped in a large amount of scurrilous mendacity. After discussing them, Mr. Bowman proposes to conclude with “some general reflections;” one of which is, that, “the religion of the Methodists inculcates violence, wrath, uncharitableness, fierceness, arbitrariness, and affectation of dominion; and teaches men to hate, reproach, and ill-treat one another.” Was this a dream of Mr. Bowman’s? or was it a wicked invention? The reverend writer finishes with a personal attack on Ingham, which must have separate attention.
In the year 1740, bread was scarce, and prices were high. Riots occurred in various parts of England; the military were called out, and several persons killed. Yorkshire was the scene of one of these disturbances. On April 26, a mob of about five hundred people assembled at Dewsbury, broke into a mill, and took away all the meal they found. On the next day, which was Sunday, the rioters again appeared, and sacked a second mill. Sir Samuel Armitage, who filled the office of high-sheriff, and Sir John Kaye a magistrate, read the proclamation, and endeavoured to disperse them; but the mob threw stones; and, proceeding to another mill in the parish of Thornhill, captured all the meal and corn, partly pulled down the building, and stole all the miller’s beef and bacon. Things were becoming desperate; and the two gentlemen, already named, desired the rioters to assemble at the house of Sir John Kaye, onMonday, April 28th, where the neighbouring magistrates would listen to their complaints. About a thousand came, beating drums, and carrying colours. Nothing good resulted. The mob retired, shouting; they neither cared for the magistrates nor the high-sheriff. They hurried to three more mills, and decamped with all the edibles the mills contained. They next proceeded to Criggleston, and broke into the barn of Joseph Pollard, and carried away a quantity of flour. Pollard fired at them; and captured several prisoners. On Tuesday, the 29th, Pollard took his captives to Wakefield, to have them tried. The rioters assembled to release their friends; and threatened to pull down Pollard’s house; to “hang himself; and to skin him like a cat.” Captain Burton,[95]however, boldly advanced to meet them; “knocked down three or four of them with his stick; took six or seven prisoners;” and marched them off to the house of correction. On the same day, a detachment of soldiers were brought from York; and, though great murmurings continued; outward quiet was restored.[96]
Strangely enough, Ingham was accused as the chief promoter of this disgraceful tumult. In theWeekly Miscellanyfor June 8, 1740, the following anonymous communication, from “Yorkshire,” was inserted. It was addressed to Mr. Hooker, the editor.
“You have no doubt seen an account, in the public prints, of the riot we had in this county. It took place at Dewsbury, where Mr. Ingham has propagated Methodism. Some will have him to be the author of this insurrection, by preaching up, as he certainly did, acommunity of goods, as was practised by thePrimitive Christians. How much he may have contributed towards raising the mob, I will not pretend to say; but what I am going to tell you of this clergyman, is matter of fact. I can prove it, and you may make what use of it you think proper. A gentleman of Leeds, who was one of Mr. Ingham’s followers, asked him what difference there was between the Church of England and his way of worship? To which Mr. Ingham replied, ‘The Church of England is the scarlet whore, prophesied of in the Revelation; and there will be no true Christianity as long as that Church subsists.’“Your humble Servant.”[97]
“You have no doubt seen an account, in the public prints, of the riot we had in this county. It took place at Dewsbury, where Mr. Ingham has propagated Methodism. Some will have him to be the author of this insurrection, by preaching up, as he certainly did, acommunity of goods, as was practised by thePrimitive Christians. How much he may have contributed towards raising the mob, I will not pretend to say; but what I am going to tell you of this clergyman, is matter of fact. I can prove it, and you may make what use of it you think proper. A gentleman of Leeds, who was one of Mr. Ingham’s followers, asked him what difference there was between the Church of England and his way of worship? To which Mr. Ingham replied, ‘The Church of England is the scarlet whore, prophesied of in the Revelation; and there will be no true Christianity as long as that Church subsists.’
“Your humble Servant.”[97]
In the then excited state of the country, and especially of Yorkshire, it would have been unwise for Ingham to have allowed such a publication to pass in silence. Hence, he waited upon Hooker, the editor of theWeekly Miscellany, who, says he, “received me in a genteel manner, and gave me proof that the letter of June 8th was from Yorkshire.” This is something to Mr. Hooker’s credit, especially when it is borne in mind that, at that period, he was one of Methodism’s bitterest opponents. The result of the interview was, Ingham wrote, and Hooker published the following lengthy letter:—
“London,June 14, 1740.“Mr. Hooker,—In your paper of June 8, you inserted a letter from Yorkshire concerning me. Had I followed my own inclination, I should have taken no more notice of this than of another falsity that was printed some time ago in theNews, that the woollen manufacture in Yorkshire was likely to be ruined, implying, by me; and of many more, spread up and down, by common report, which often contradict one another. But the advice of friends has prevailed with me to write this, in answer to what the author of that letter charges me with.“The author of the letter charges me with two things: directly and indirectly:—“As to the riot that was lately in Yorkshire, he does not say directly that I was the cause of it; but he insinuates something like it, as being the consequence of my doctrine. But if this person was not sure that I was the cause of this insurrection, it is very unbecoming, either of a Christian or a gentleman, to hint at such a thing. When the riot happened, I was absent from Dewsbury parish, at the time and several days after. I neither knew nor heard anything of it till it was over. As soon as I heard of it, I spoke against it as a very wicked thing, and of dangerous consequence. I inquired particularly whether any persons that frequented the societies were in it. I heard of three. But one of them had been turned out some weeks before for misbehaviour. The other two, I ordered to be turned out directly, and publicly disowned; though, I believe, they, as many more, were drawn to run among the rabble, through weakness and curiosity. The gentleman says, some will have me to be the author of the insurrection. It is true,they say so. And, indeed, everything that comes amiss is laid to my charge.They saidI was the occasion of the wet season last summer; of the long frost in winter; of the present war; and, if it blows a storm, some or othersayI am the cause of it. But this is the talk of the vulgar; men of sense know better. Does not every one know that,they say, a common report is generally false?“But, further, to thesecondcharge. Supposing I had preached up a community of goods, as this gentleman positively asserts (which I neverdid), would it thence follow, that people have a liberty to plunder; that they may take away their neighbour’s goods by force? If the one was a necessary consequence of the other, then the apostles and first Christians were much to blame in what they did. If all were real Christians, yet it would not be necessary to have a community of goods. None were obliged to it in the apostles’ days. They entered into it willingly. But in the present state of things, it would be both absurd and impracticable to attempt such a thing. What might make some people think that I maintained this doctrine, perhaps, was this. I once preached a charity sermon at Leeds, I think, from these words: ‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed were his own; but they had all things common.’ But I nowhere asserted therein, that we were now obliged to do as they then did. I only exhorted my hearers to imitate the good examples of the primitive Christians, and to contribute generously to the wants of their poor brethren, according to their ability. Now, if this gentleman’s mistake arose from this sermon, if he thinks it worth his while to come over to Osset, after my return into Yorkshire,—I promise to let him see the sermon, as I preached it (for it is not altered), that he may be fully satisfied; for I neitherdid, nordopreach up a community of goods.“Thethirdthing which the author of the letter lays to my charge, and which he says is matter of fact, and which he can prove, is this: A gentleman of Leeds, who was one of my followers, asked what difference there was between the Church of England and my way of worship? To which, he says, I replied, ‘The Church of England is the scarlet whore, prophesied of in the Revelation; and there will be no true Christianity as long as that Church subsists.’ Now, supposing any gentleman should have asked me such a question (which I do not remember), do these words look like a pertinent answer to such a question? I never pretended to set up a new way of worship. I still live in the communion of the Church of England. My neighbours can testify that I go to church constantly, and receive the sacrament. But, further, I am sure that I neverdid, norcouldsay these words; forthey are contrary to my settled judgment. I may have said words like these, yet quite different in their meaning.“It has been a very common thing for people to misrepresent my sense, and to run away with half a sentence. When I have been preaching the doctrine of universal redemption, and asserting that God made no man purposely to be damned, but that He would have all to be saved, some have reported that I maintained, nobody would be damned. When I have been declaring the riches of God’s love and mercy, in receiving the greatest sinners, coming to Him through Christ, some have said that I gave people liberty to live as they list. And, again, when I have been speaking of that purity of heart and holiness of life which the gospel requires, some have said (and it is the general outcry), according to my doctrine, nobody can be saved. I scarce ever preach a sermon but somebody or other misrepresents it. But, I am afraid, I have deviated too much in mentioning these things.“To return then. I have said that Babylon and the whore, mentioned in the Revelation, relate to more Churches than one; and that the Church of England is concerned therein as well as other Churches; but I never said that she wasthe scarlet whore. I believe, indeed, that, by Babylon and the whore, the Church of Rome is chiefly and principally meant; but, yet, the Scripture saith, she sitteth upon many waters;i.e., people and multitudes, and nations and tongues, all sects and parties (Rev. xvii. 15). For Babylon signifies confusion; and by the scarlet whore is meant corruption, or departing from the truth either in principle or practice (Hos. i. 2; ii. 5). Babylon, therefore, or the whore is in, and may be applied to, every Church and person, where there is not a perfect self-denial and entire resignation to God. And are there not multitudes of persons in every Church in Christendom, and consequently in the Church of England, who greatly depart from the truth as it is in Jesus?“As to the latter part of this accusation,—‘There will be no true Christianity as long as that Church exists,’—I absolutely deny that I could say so; because I believe there always was, always will be, and now is, a true Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. I believe, likewise, that many of the Church of England, and some out of every sect and party, are members of this true Church of Christ. I have, indeed, often said that there is a glorious state of the Church to come, when the partition wall of bigotry, sect, religion, and party zeal will be broken down; and the Jews will be called; and the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in; and the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. I do not pretend to know when this time will be; but whenever it commences there will be another face of things in Christendom. The outward pomp and grandeur of the Church will be diminished, and the inward beauty will appear the brighter. The spirit of primitive Christianity will be revived; and, probably, the last state of the Church will be more glorious than the first. It will be happy for them who live in those days; but yet, in the meantime, I believe and hope many will be saved out of all Churches or societies of Christians, and meet together in that blessed place, where there will be no difference or disputing, but all will be love and joy and peace.“I am, sir, your humble Servant,“B. Ingham.”[98]
“London,June 14, 1740.
“Mr. Hooker,—In your paper of June 8, you inserted a letter from Yorkshire concerning me. Had I followed my own inclination, I should have taken no more notice of this than of another falsity that was printed some time ago in theNews, that the woollen manufacture in Yorkshire was likely to be ruined, implying, by me; and of many more, spread up and down, by common report, which often contradict one another. But the advice of friends has prevailed with me to write this, in answer to what the author of that letter charges me with.
“The author of the letter charges me with two things: directly and indirectly:—
“As to the riot that was lately in Yorkshire, he does not say directly that I was the cause of it; but he insinuates something like it, as being the consequence of my doctrine. But if this person was not sure that I was the cause of this insurrection, it is very unbecoming, either of a Christian or a gentleman, to hint at such a thing. When the riot happened, I was absent from Dewsbury parish, at the time and several days after. I neither knew nor heard anything of it till it was over. As soon as I heard of it, I spoke against it as a very wicked thing, and of dangerous consequence. I inquired particularly whether any persons that frequented the societies were in it. I heard of three. But one of them had been turned out some weeks before for misbehaviour. The other two, I ordered to be turned out directly, and publicly disowned; though, I believe, they, as many more, were drawn to run among the rabble, through weakness and curiosity. The gentleman says, some will have me to be the author of the insurrection. It is true,they say so. And, indeed, everything that comes amiss is laid to my charge.They saidI was the occasion of the wet season last summer; of the long frost in winter; of the present war; and, if it blows a storm, some or othersayI am the cause of it. But this is the talk of the vulgar; men of sense know better. Does not every one know that,they say, a common report is generally false?
“But, further, to thesecondcharge. Supposing I had preached up a community of goods, as this gentleman positively asserts (which I neverdid), would it thence follow, that people have a liberty to plunder; that they may take away their neighbour’s goods by force? If the one was a necessary consequence of the other, then the apostles and first Christians were much to blame in what they did. If all were real Christians, yet it would not be necessary to have a community of goods. None were obliged to it in the apostles’ days. They entered into it willingly. But in the present state of things, it would be both absurd and impracticable to attempt such a thing. What might make some people think that I maintained this doctrine, perhaps, was this. I once preached a charity sermon at Leeds, I think, from these words: ‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed were his own; but they had all things common.’ But I nowhere asserted therein, that we were now obliged to do as they then did. I only exhorted my hearers to imitate the good examples of the primitive Christians, and to contribute generously to the wants of their poor brethren, according to their ability. Now, if this gentleman’s mistake arose from this sermon, if he thinks it worth his while to come over to Osset, after my return into Yorkshire,—I promise to let him see the sermon, as I preached it (for it is not altered), that he may be fully satisfied; for I neitherdid, nordopreach up a community of goods.
“Thethirdthing which the author of the letter lays to my charge, and which he says is matter of fact, and which he can prove, is this: A gentleman of Leeds, who was one of my followers, asked what difference there was between the Church of England and my way of worship? To which, he says, I replied, ‘The Church of England is the scarlet whore, prophesied of in the Revelation; and there will be no true Christianity as long as that Church subsists.’ Now, supposing any gentleman should have asked me such a question (which I do not remember), do these words look like a pertinent answer to such a question? I never pretended to set up a new way of worship. I still live in the communion of the Church of England. My neighbours can testify that I go to church constantly, and receive the sacrament. But, further, I am sure that I neverdid, norcouldsay these words; forthey are contrary to my settled judgment. I may have said words like these, yet quite different in their meaning.
“It has been a very common thing for people to misrepresent my sense, and to run away with half a sentence. When I have been preaching the doctrine of universal redemption, and asserting that God made no man purposely to be damned, but that He would have all to be saved, some have reported that I maintained, nobody would be damned. When I have been declaring the riches of God’s love and mercy, in receiving the greatest sinners, coming to Him through Christ, some have said that I gave people liberty to live as they list. And, again, when I have been speaking of that purity of heart and holiness of life which the gospel requires, some have said (and it is the general outcry), according to my doctrine, nobody can be saved. I scarce ever preach a sermon but somebody or other misrepresents it. But, I am afraid, I have deviated too much in mentioning these things.
“To return then. I have said that Babylon and the whore, mentioned in the Revelation, relate to more Churches than one; and that the Church of England is concerned therein as well as other Churches; but I never said that she wasthe scarlet whore. I believe, indeed, that, by Babylon and the whore, the Church of Rome is chiefly and principally meant; but, yet, the Scripture saith, she sitteth upon many waters;i.e., people and multitudes, and nations and tongues, all sects and parties (Rev. xvii. 15). For Babylon signifies confusion; and by the scarlet whore is meant corruption, or departing from the truth either in principle or practice (Hos. i. 2; ii. 5). Babylon, therefore, or the whore is in, and may be applied to, every Church and person, where there is not a perfect self-denial and entire resignation to God. And are there not multitudes of persons in every Church in Christendom, and consequently in the Church of England, who greatly depart from the truth as it is in Jesus?
“As to the latter part of this accusation,—‘There will be no true Christianity as long as that Church exists,’—I absolutely deny that I could say so; because I believe there always was, always will be, and now is, a true Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. I believe, likewise, that many of the Church of England, and some out of every sect and party, are members of this true Church of Christ. I have, indeed, often said that there is a glorious state of the Church to come, when the partition wall of bigotry, sect, religion, and party zeal will be broken down; and the Jews will be called; and the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in; and the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. I do not pretend to know when this time will be; but whenever it commences there will be another face of things in Christendom. The outward pomp and grandeur of the Church will be diminished, and the inward beauty will appear the brighter. The spirit of primitive Christianity will be revived; and, probably, the last state of the Church will be more glorious than the first. It will be happy for them who live in those days; but yet, in the meantime, I believe and hope many will be saved out of all Churches or societies of Christians, and meet together in that blessed place, where there will be no difference or disputing, but all will be love and joy and peace.
“I am, sir, your humble Servant,
“B. Ingham.”[98]
Mr. Hooker, the editor, inserted Ingham’s letter; but he did so with reluctance. He snarled even while pretending to be just and generous. Hence he appended an ill-tempered article of his own, from which the following is an extract. Having told his readers, that, “at Mr. Ingham’s request, he had published his letter,” he proceeds,—
“If I recollect the many instances of the great want ofsimplicity,sincerity, and regard totruth, which some otherteachersamong the Methodists have discovered, I should naturallysuspectthat Mr. Ingham may not have given a fair account of his case. Or, if I judge of his probity inthisinstance by his conduct inothers, the presumption of insincerity must lie against him. Nay, I think, there are some grounds of suspicion in hisdefence. But what I insist upon is this,—that hispublic conduct is insincere and dishonest. While he owns that he communicates with the Church of England, and by communicating with her, hesubjectshimself to herauthority, he sets up separate meetings inopposition to it, indefianceof it, nay, indefianceofallauthority, bothcivil and ecclesiastical. By thisillegal,disobedientbehaviour to the laws of thatChurchand of thatcivil society, of which he is a member, he has given just and great scandal to all goodChristians. In cases ofpublic scandal, the laws ofChristianityand ofcommon charityrequire the person who gives it to askpublic pardon, toalter his public conduct, orpublicly to vindicate it.”
“If I recollect the many instances of the great want ofsimplicity,sincerity, and regard totruth, which some otherteachersamong the Methodists have discovered, I should naturallysuspectthat Mr. Ingham may not have given a fair account of his case. Or, if I judge of his probity inthisinstance by his conduct inothers, the presumption of insincerity must lie against him. Nay, I think, there are some grounds of suspicion in hisdefence. But what I insist upon is this,—that hispublic conduct is insincere and dishonest. While he owns that he communicates with the Church of England, and by communicating with her, hesubjectshimself to herauthority, he sets up separate meetings inopposition to it, indefianceof it, nay, indefianceofallauthority, bothcivil and ecclesiastical. By thisillegal,disobedientbehaviour to the laws of thatChurchand of thatcivil society, of which he is a member, he has given just and great scandal to all goodChristians. In cases ofpublic scandal, the laws ofChristianityand ofcommon charityrequire the person who gives it to askpublic pardon, toalter his public conduct, orpublicly to vindicate it.”
This was hard measure. Poor Ingham had been most unjustly accused of being the author of the Yorkshire riot, and had defended himself; and now the editor of theWeekly Miscellanycharges him with insincerity, dishonesty, and causing public scandal; and officiously prescribes that he should ask public pardon. Hooker was too much of a partisan to discharge his editorial duties with even-handed justice. Ingham made no reply to the Editor’s unwarrantable attack; but the latter printed two other letters, in which the same hostility was rampant. The first was dated, “Wakefield, July 16, 1740,” and fills an entire folio page, and nearly one third of another. In reply to Ingham’s statement, that he was not in the parish of Dewsbury when the riot commenced, nor for several days afterwards, the anonymous letter-writer calls this “an equivocating way of talking,” for three men of veracity had declared that he was all the while at Osset, a township in the parish. Can this be true? We cannot but disbelieve it. Ingham was incapable of such equivocation. The following extracts also are too manifestly malignant to be altogether truthful:—
“There were more of Mr. Ingham’s followers concerned in the riot than he would have the world to believe. For one fellow, who had lived with him several months under the same roof, was one of the ring-leaders of the rioters,—a very busy man in breaking the miller’s utensils, and a kind of helper of those to wheat flour who had no right to it. This godly man fled from justice, and has not since been heard of. Another of Mr. Ingham’s admirers at Osset very carefully helped himself at the mill; and healso absconded, till, as he thought, the danger was over, and now he appears again. A third of the Methodists concerned in this riot, was taken up by some of his Majesty’s justices of the peace, and was sent to York among other criminals, where he awaits his trial at the next assizes. If Mr. Ingham had inquired as particularly as he pretends, he would have ascertained that when these outrageous men gathered from several towns to seize upon Mr. Pollard’s corn at Crigglestone, there were not only two, but two hundred, perhaps many more, of his followers mixed with others in the same wicked design.“This gentleman denies that he ever preached up a community of goods; and yet one of his former hearers at Osset, who is now returned to the Church, assured me that Mr. Ingham had often done that, and had told his auditors, ‘That none of them need to labour, for God would provide for them; and that they must throw themselves upon Jesus Christ, their whole life being spent in religious exercises being no more than sufficient to save their souls; for they who were rich ought to supply the wants of the poor.’ ‘So,’ says he, ‘had I followed Mr. Ingham’s advice, I should not have been worth a groat.’ And even Mr. Ingham’s brother declared, ‘If I mind our Ben, he will preach me out of all I have.’ This information I had from Mr. Glover, of Osset. I am far from thinking Mr. Ingham persuaded any to rise in this tumultuous manner, and charitably hope he did not approve of the riot; yet, when all circumstances are laid together, it is a great presumption that his preaching up a community of goods to men of low condition, was an encouragement to them in this dear season to make bold with more than their own.”“As to the charge about ‘the scarlet whore,’ the writer acknowledges that when the gentleman in Leeds, who had given the information, was cross-examined, ‘he quibbled, gave ambiguous answers, and, in short, could be fixed to nothing.’”
“There were more of Mr. Ingham’s followers concerned in the riot than he would have the world to believe. For one fellow, who had lived with him several months under the same roof, was one of the ring-leaders of the rioters,—a very busy man in breaking the miller’s utensils, and a kind of helper of those to wheat flour who had no right to it. This godly man fled from justice, and has not since been heard of. Another of Mr. Ingham’s admirers at Osset very carefully helped himself at the mill; and healso absconded, till, as he thought, the danger was over, and now he appears again. A third of the Methodists concerned in this riot, was taken up by some of his Majesty’s justices of the peace, and was sent to York among other criminals, where he awaits his trial at the next assizes. If Mr. Ingham had inquired as particularly as he pretends, he would have ascertained that when these outrageous men gathered from several towns to seize upon Mr. Pollard’s corn at Crigglestone, there were not only two, but two hundred, perhaps many more, of his followers mixed with others in the same wicked design.
“This gentleman denies that he ever preached up a community of goods; and yet one of his former hearers at Osset, who is now returned to the Church, assured me that Mr. Ingham had often done that, and had told his auditors, ‘That none of them need to labour, for God would provide for them; and that they must throw themselves upon Jesus Christ, their whole life being spent in religious exercises being no more than sufficient to save their souls; for they who were rich ought to supply the wants of the poor.’ ‘So,’ says he, ‘had I followed Mr. Ingham’s advice, I should not have been worth a groat.’ And even Mr. Ingham’s brother declared, ‘If I mind our Ben, he will preach me out of all I have.’ This information I had from Mr. Glover, of Osset. I am far from thinking Mr. Ingham persuaded any to rise in this tumultuous manner, and charitably hope he did not approve of the riot; yet, when all circumstances are laid together, it is a great presumption that his preaching up a community of goods to men of low condition, was an encouragement to them in this dear season to make bold with more than their own.”
“As to the charge about ‘the scarlet whore,’ the writer acknowledges that when the gentleman in Leeds, who had given the information, was cross-examined, ‘he quibbled, gave ambiguous answers, and, in short, could be fixed to nothing.’”
In reference to Mr. Ingham’s “new way of worship,” all that the correspondent of theWeekly Miscellanycan allege, is the following:—
“Mr. Ingham has preached in a croft at Osset to a confused number of people, drawn together from several parishes, which more resembled a bear-baiting than an orderly congregation for the worship of God. When Mr. Rogers,[99]one of his fellow-itinerants, came into these parts, he accompanied him to Westgate-Moor, adjoining to Wakefield, and stood by him, while the other harangued the mob from a stool or table. Mr.Rogers, in preaching from ‘Beware of dogs,’ advised his hearers to beware of the ministers of the present age; for all the ministers now-a-days preach false doctrine to tickle their carnal ears, that they may fill their coffers with money, and preach their souls to the devil. Another of Mr. Ingham’s associates, Mr. Delamotte, who is still a laic, being asked by a clergyman why he did not proceed regularly for a degree, and then for orders, answered, ‘If you mean episcopal ordination, I assure you I think the gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it.’ Rogers also told the same clergyman, that he was ‘as much inspired as St. Paul was, except the working of miracles; and that he could not commit actual sin.’ Besides all this, Mr. Ingham keeps his meetings, unauthorized by law, at Dewsbury, Osset, Mirfield, and other places, particularly at Horbury, in this parish, where he prays, sings, expounds, preaches, and visits the sick, without the consent or knowledge of the minister who resides there, though he is always ready to discharge his duty, and is much superior to Mr. Ingham in every respect for the discharge of it. As to the services he uses, it is a medley of his own; for though he makes use of the Common Prayer, he disguises and spoils it by his own additions. Much more might be said about his disorderly meetings, particularly locking himself up with a select number of his hearers till midnight, or after.”
“Mr. Ingham has preached in a croft at Osset to a confused number of people, drawn together from several parishes, which more resembled a bear-baiting than an orderly congregation for the worship of God. When Mr. Rogers,[99]one of his fellow-itinerants, came into these parts, he accompanied him to Westgate-Moor, adjoining to Wakefield, and stood by him, while the other harangued the mob from a stool or table. Mr.Rogers, in preaching from ‘Beware of dogs,’ advised his hearers to beware of the ministers of the present age; for all the ministers now-a-days preach false doctrine to tickle their carnal ears, that they may fill their coffers with money, and preach their souls to the devil. Another of Mr. Ingham’s associates, Mr. Delamotte, who is still a laic, being asked by a clergyman why he did not proceed regularly for a degree, and then for orders, answered, ‘If you mean episcopal ordination, I assure you I think the gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it.’ Rogers also told the same clergyman, that he was ‘as much inspired as St. Paul was, except the working of miracles; and that he could not commit actual sin.’ Besides all this, Mr. Ingham keeps his meetings, unauthorized by law, at Dewsbury, Osset, Mirfield, and other places, particularly at Horbury, in this parish, where he prays, sings, expounds, preaches, and visits the sick, without the consent or knowledge of the minister who resides there, though he is always ready to discharge his duty, and is much superior to Mr. Ingham in every respect for the discharge of it. As to the services he uses, it is a medley of his own; for though he makes use of the Common Prayer, he disguises and spoils it by his own additions. Much more might be said about his disorderly meetings, particularly locking himself up with a select number of his hearers till midnight, or after.”
The writer thus concludes:—
“Let this intruder, who pretends to act as a minister of the Established Church, say by what Canon in any General Council, by what Constitution in any National Church, he takes upon himself to wander from place to place, sometimes preaching in the fields, and sometimes creeping into private houses, to the great disturbance and disquiet of the lawfully appointed ministers, and raising schisms and distractions in a Church established upon primitive antiquity.”[100]
“Let this intruder, who pretends to act as a minister of the Established Church, say by what Canon in any General Council, by what Constitution in any National Church, he takes upon himself to wander from place to place, sometimes preaching in the fields, and sometimes creeping into private houses, to the great disturbance and disquiet of the lawfully appointed ministers, and raising schisms and distractions in a Church established upon primitive antiquity.”[100]
The other letter was not dissimilar to the one already quoted. It was dated, “Dewsbury, August 18, 1740,” and signed “A Layman;” and was published in theWeekly Miscellany, on August 30th. This charitably alarmed “Layman” brands the Methodists as “hot-headed enthusiasts;” speaks of Ingham and Delamotte as “those high pretenders to purity and holiness;” and stigmatises the latter as an “enthusiastic babbler,” pouring out “effusions of nonsense.” The following is the concluding paragraph:—
“Whatever sorry evasions Mr. Ingham may make to extenuate his wickedness in being instrumental to the riot at Dewsbury; yet, it is certain that he is highly culpable, and was, if not at the bottom, the sole cause of it. The principles he instils into his adherents are such as, whenknown, no better consequences could be expected than those that have followed: and what further mischief may ensue, if he be not restrained, is shocking to consider:—no less than the introducing of Popery, or, at least, some measures of his own destructive to the tranquillity and happiness of the community.”
“Whatever sorry evasions Mr. Ingham may make to extenuate his wickedness in being instrumental to the riot at Dewsbury; yet, it is certain that he is highly culpable, and was, if not at the bottom, the sole cause of it. The principles he instils into his adherents are such as, whenknown, no better consequences could be expected than those that have followed: and what further mischief may ensue, if he be not restrained, is shocking to consider:—no less than the introducing of Popery, or, at least, some measures of his own destructive to the tranquillity and happiness of the community.”
In the same month in which this layman’s letter was published, Mr. Bowman, the reverend vicar of Dewsbury, finished his furious pamphlet on “The Imposture of Methodism Displayed;” and, of course, was too zealously honest to be silent respecting the riot. Mr. Hooker’s correspondents were meekness itself compared with this pamphleteering pugilist. He declares, he “never met with so much downright falsehood, such trifling evasions, and matter so foreign to the purpose” as he had met with in Ingham’s letter in theWeekly Miscellany. He asserts, that, during the riot, Ingham “had a constant communication with several of the inhabitants, by means of his nocturnal assemblies; and, that, he had rashly given out, some little time before the riot happened, that,in a few hours’ warning, he could have ten thousand men ready for any emergency.” Mr. Bowman writes:—
“Ingham’s conduct was, at that time, so much taken notice of and suspected, that the magistrates were almost determined to apprehend him, as a disturber and incendiary; and, I believe, were only deterred from it, in consideration of what might happen from the fierceness and fury of his adherents. Were it requisite, I could name several of his great favourites and abettors, who had no small share in these disturbances. I myself heard two of his principal associates, three days before the affair happened, insinuate that such a thing was shortly to be expected, and that the people might be justified in what they did. Whence we may reasonably presume, that this horrid villany could nowhere be hatched but in these infernal assemblies.”... “I can prove by the incontestable evidence of great numbers, both of his constant and accidental hearers, that acommunity of goodsis a common topic of discourse with him, in his sermons, in his expositions, and in his private conversation also. I know, that, he has endeavoured to persuade several of his followers to sell their estates and possessions, as the first Christians did, for the relief of their poor brethren; and that he has declared over and over,That private property was inconsistent with Christianity; and that as long as any one had anything of his own, he could not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”... “It is surprising to the last degree that a set of incorrigible wretches should be thus suffered to trample with impunity on all laws, ecclesiastical and civil; to spread doctrines subversive both to religion and the state; to form secret assemblies and cabals, in order to disturb the repose of society, and throw everything into confusionand disorder. No one in the world is a heartier friend to toleration, or would make more favourable allowances to tender consciences, than myself; but, God forbid! that, under the notion of toleration, we should give opportunity to cheats and impostors to sow their hemlock and nightshade among us; to extirpate all traces of true religion and virtue; or to traitors and rebels to sap the foundation of our civil constitution; to deliver up our king and our country to ruin.”
“Ingham’s conduct was, at that time, so much taken notice of and suspected, that the magistrates were almost determined to apprehend him, as a disturber and incendiary; and, I believe, were only deterred from it, in consideration of what might happen from the fierceness and fury of his adherents. Were it requisite, I could name several of his great favourites and abettors, who had no small share in these disturbances. I myself heard two of his principal associates, three days before the affair happened, insinuate that such a thing was shortly to be expected, and that the people might be justified in what they did. Whence we may reasonably presume, that this horrid villany could nowhere be hatched but in these infernal assemblies.”... “I can prove by the incontestable evidence of great numbers, both of his constant and accidental hearers, that acommunity of goodsis a common topic of discourse with him, in his sermons, in his expositions, and in his private conversation also. I know, that, he has endeavoured to persuade several of his followers to sell their estates and possessions, as the first Christians did, for the relief of their poor brethren; and that he has declared over and over,That private property was inconsistent with Christianity; and that as long as any one had anything of his own, he could not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”... “It is surprising to the last degree that a set of incorrigible wretches should be thus suffered to trample with impunity on all laws, ecclesiastical and civil; to spread doctrines subversive both to religion and the state; to form secret assemblies and cabals, in order to disturb the repose of society, and throw everything into confusionand disorder. No one in the world is a heartier friend to toleration, or would make more favourable allowances to tender consciences, than myself; but, God forbid! that, under the notion of toleration, we should give opportunity to cheats and impostors to sow their hemlock and nightshade among us; to extirpate all traces of true religion and virtue; or to traitors and rebels to sap the foundation of our civil constitution; to deliver up our king and our country to ruin.”
Thus,nolens volens, was Ingham branded as aCommunist, and the author of the Yorkshire riots. It was far from pleasant to be pelted with such paper pellets; but there was no help for it. In every age, the inspired text has been literally fulfilled, “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” We are not prepared to justify everything which Ingham said and did; but we are prepared to deny, with righteous indignation, that he was acommunistand arioter. His enemies were too bitter to be truthful. His utterances respecting the members of the primitive Church were perverted to serve a malignant purpose. They might, on some occasions, be unguarded; but they were not intended to sanction communistic politics. He himself repudiated such intention; but his adversaries persisted in their unrighteous accusation, and made it worse by charging him with mendacity. It was hard usage; but not uncommon among the Moravians and Methodists. The newspaper controversy respecting Ingham was ended; but, for ten months afterwards, Mr. Hooker employed almost every number of hisWeekly Miscellanyin abusing the Methodists, and Wesley and Whitefield in particular.
This is a long account of what some may deem a comparatively unimportant chapter in Ingham’s life; but, we trust, it may not be altogether uninteresting and useless; first, because, we believe, this was the only newspaper warfare that fell to Ingham’s lot; and, secondly, and especially, because it shows the unfavourable circumstances under which John Nelson began to preach, and the difficulty there must have been in instituting Yorkshire Methodism only a few months afterwards.
Ingham’s ministerial labours were not confined to his native county. John Bennett brought him into Derbyshire.[101]Wehave also seen, that, he paid frequent visits to the metropolis. Bedford, likewise, and the vicinity were favoured with his preaching. His Christian sympathy was world-wide. Six years before, he had crossed the Atlantic to convert the Indians. He was an active member of the Moravian “Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel”; and having, by some means, become acquainted with the great Dissenter of the day, the Rev. Dr. Doddridge, proposed him as one of its corresponding members. Hence the following letter sent to Doddridge:—
“London,August 6th, 1741.“Dear Sir,—I have here sent you the letters I promised you. I am also to inform you, that you are chosen to be a corresponding member of the ‘Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel.’ Before you expressed your desire to me, I had already proposed you to the committee, who all approved of you; and, after the meeting was over, when I mentioned you to the society, they all unanimously chose you without balloting; so that, when you are in London, you will not only have the liberty to hear the letters and accounts read, but also to meet with the members about business,—and, further, to be in the committee. The brethren will be glad to hear from you as often as you please, and they, from time to time, will send you some accounts of the transactions of the Society. I gave what you entrusted me with to the box. Mr. Moody gave a guinea. Brother Spangenberg and all the brethren salute you.“Your affectionate friend and brother in Christ,“B. Ingham.”
“London,August 6th, 1741.
“Dear Sir,—I have here sent you the letters I promised you. I am also to inform you, that you are chosen to be a corresponding member of the ‘Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel.’ Before you expressed your desire to me, I had already proposed you to the committee, who all approved of you; and, after the meeting was over, when I mentioned you to the society, they all unanimously chose you without balloting; so that, when you are in London, you will not only have the liberty to hear the letters and accounts read, but also to meet with the members about business,—and, further, to be in the committee. The brethren will be glad to hear from you as often as you please, and they, from time to time, will send you some accounts of the transactions of the Society. I gave what you entrusted me with to the box. Mr. Moody gave a guinea. Brother Spangenberg and all the brethren salute you.
“Your affectionate friend and brother in Christ,
“B. Ingham.”
Doddridge’s answer was as follows:—
“Northampton,August 8th, 1741.“Rev. and dear Brother,—I am thankful to the ‘Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel’ for their readiness to admit so unworthy a member, and hope, as the Lord shall enable me, to approve myself cordially affectionate, though incapable of giving much assistance.“I did this day, in our Church meeting, publicly report some important facts from Brother Hutton and others, as to the success of our dear Moravian Brethren and their associates. We rejoiced in the Lord at the joyful tidings, and joined in recommending them to the grace of God. I hope Providence will enable me to be a little serviceable to this good design. I shall gladly continue to correspond with the Society, and gladly hope to have some good news from these parts ere long. In the mean time, I humbly commend myself to your prayers and theirs.“The conversation at Mr. Moody’s, on Monday morning, has left a deep impression on my heart. Salute my dear brethren, Messrs. Spangenberg and Kinchin, with Mr. Hutton, etc. I shall hope to hear when that blessed herald of our Redeemer, Count Zinzendorf, arrives. We longto see you. God brought me home in peace, and I found all well here. My wife and other friends salute you in the Lord.“I am, dear sir, your unworthy but affectionate friend in our gracious Lord,“Philip Doddridge.“P.S.—I have looked over several of the letters with great pleasure, and heartily thank you for sending them. Glory be to Him, who causes His gospel to triumph, and magnifies the riches of His grace in getting Himself the victory, by soldiers, who, out of weakness, are made strong. If Christ raise to Himself a seed among the Negroes and Hottentots, I will honour them beyond all the politest nations upon earth that obey not His glorious gospel.”[102]
“Northampton,August 8th, 1741.
“Rev. and dear Brother,—I am thankful to the ‘Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel’ for their readiness to admit so unworthy a member, and hope, as the Lord shall enable me, to approve myself cordially affectionate, though incapable of giving much assistance.
“I did this day, in our Church meeting, publicly report some important facts from Brother Hutton and others, as to the success of our dear Moravian Brethren and their associates. We rejoiced in the Lord at the joyful tidings, and joined in recommending them to the grace of God. I hope Providence will enable me to be a little serviceable to this good design. I shall gladly continue to correspond with the Society, and gladly hope to have some good news from these parts ere long. In the mean time, I humbly commend myself to your prayers and theirs.
“The conversation at Mr. Moody’s, on Monday morning, has left a deep impression on my heart. Salute my dear brethren, Messrs. Spangenberg and Kinchin, with Mr. Hutton, etc. I shall hope to hear when that blessed herald of our Redeemer, Count Zinzendorf, arrives. We longto see you. God brought me home in peace, and I found all well here. My wife and other friends salute you in the Lord.
“I am, dear sir, your unworthy but affectionate friend in our gracious Lord,
“Philip Doddridge.
“P.S.—I have looked over several of the letters with great pleasure, and heartily thank you for sending them. Glory be to Him, who causes His gospel to triumph, and magnifies the riches of His grace in getting Himself the victory, by soldiers, who, out of weakness, are made strong. If Christ raise to Himself a seed among the Negroes and Hottentots, I will honour them beyond all the politest nations upon earth that obey not His glorious gospel.”[102]
This Missionary Society, of which Ingham was one of the chief members, though still in its infancy, had already accomplished a most marvellous and blessed work. Its origin was remarkable. In 1731, Count Zinzendorf visited Copenhagen, for the purpose of being present at the coronation of Christian VI., king of Denmark. Whilst there, some of the count’s servants became acquainted with a negro, from the island of St. Thomas, in the West Indies. The negro told them of the ardent desire of many of the slaves in that island to be taught the way of salvation; but added, that their labours were so incessant that they had no leisure for religious instruction; and that the only way to reach them was for the missionary himself to become a slave, and to teach them during their daily toils. This was related to the Brethren of Herrnhut; and the result was, two young men, Leonard Dover and Tobias Leupold publicly offered to go to St. Thomas’s, and even tosell themselves as slaves, if they could find no other way of preaching to the negroes. Thus began the Moravian missions to the heathen; and, within ten years, at the time when Ingham proposed Doddridge as a corresponding member of the Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, missionaries had been sent to St. Thomas’s, to St. Croix, to Greenland, to Surinam, to the Rio de Berbice, to several Indian tribes in North America, to the negroes in South Carolina, to Lapland, to Tartary, to Algiers, to Guinea, to the Cape of Good Hope, and to Ceylon.
Among others greatly benefited by Ingham’s ministry, werethe four daughters of the Earl of Huntingdon, Lady Anne, Lady Frances, Lady Catherine, and Lady Margaret Hastings. While on a visit at Ledstone Hall, in Yorkshire, they were induced, by motives of curiosity, to hear him preach in a neighbouring parish. He was then invited to preach in Ledsham Church; and became a frequent visitor at the Hall. When in London, the Ladies Hastings attended the preaching of the Moravians and first Methodists. Under this ministry, they were given to see the insufficiency of their own righteousness and the method of salvation on which they had been resting, and were made willing to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as the foundation of their hope and trust. Lady Margaret was the first who received the truth; and the change effected, by the Holy Spirit, on her heart soon became visible to all. Considering the obligations she was under to the grace of God, she felt herself called upon to seek the salvation of her fellow-creatures, and the promotion of their best and eternal interests. Next to her own soul, the salvation of her own family and friends became her care. She exhorted them faithfully and affectionately, one by one, to “flee from the wrath to come;” and the Lord was pleased to make her the honoured instrument of the conversion of not a few of them. Her brother, the ninth Earl of Huntingdon, had been married to Lady Selina Shirley, second daughter of Earl Ferrers; and it is a fact too interesting to be omitted, that, the conversion of this remarkable woman was, under God, the result of a casual remark which fell from Lady Margaret. The two conversing one day, on the subject of religion, Lady Margaret observed, “That since she had known and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for life and salvation, she had been as happy as an angel.” This scrap of Methodist lovefeast-experience was “a word spoken in due season.” It led to self-examination, and to scriptural inquiry; and Selina, Countess of Huntingdon, never rested until she also had found peace with God through faith in Christ.
Lady Margaret Hastings was united in marriage to Mr. Ingham, on November 12th, 1741, at the residence of her brother, the Earl of Huntingdon, in London. The union was a happy one. To the last moments of his life, Inghamexpressed the highest veneration and affection for his wife, and was honoured with the intimate friendship of several of her noble relatives. The marriage, in some aristocratic circles, was considered amésalliance, and furnished food for scandal in the fashionable world. “The Methodists,” said the Countess of Hertford, “have had the honour to convert my Lord and Lady Huntingdon, both to their doctrine and practice; and the town now says, that Lady Margaret Hastings is certainly to marry one of their teachers, whose name is Ingham.” “The news I hear from London,” wrote Lady Mary Wortley Montague, from Rome, “is that Lady Margaret Hastings has disposed of herself to a poor, wandering Methodist preacher.” The higher classes of society indulged in ridicule; the poor Moravians gave thanks to God, and prayed for the newly-wedded couple. Ingham wrote to inform the Brethren of his marriage, and the Brethren sang for him the hymn beginning—