Chapter L: Tyerman (6)

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 determine whether, “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, that _they 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, consists in 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, on Monday, 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 the _Weekly Miscellany_ for 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, a _community of goods_, as was practised by
the _Primitive 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 the _Weekly 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 the _News_,
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 said_ I 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 other _say_ I 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 the _second_ charge. Supposing I had preached
up a community of goods, as this gentleman positively asserts
(which I never did), 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 neither _did_, nor _do_ preach up a community of goods.

“The _third_ thing 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 never _did_, nor
_could_ say these words; for _they 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 was _the 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 of
_simplicity_, _sincerity_, and regard to _truth_, which some
other _teachers_ among the Methodists have discovered, I
should naturally _suspect_ that Mr. Ingham may not have given
a fair account of his case. Or, if I judge of his probity in
_this_ instance by his conduct in _others_, the presumption
of insincerity must lie against him. Nay, I think, there
are some grounds of suspicion in his _defence_. But what I
insist upon is this,—that his _public conduct is insincere
and dishonest_. While he owns that he communicates with the
Church of England, and by communicating with her, he _subjects_
himself to her _authority_, he sets up separate meetings in
_opposition to it_, in _defiance_ of it, nay, in _defiance_
of _all_ authority, both _civil and ecclesiastical_. By this
_illegal_, _disobedient_ behaviour to the laws of that _Church_
and of that _civil society_, of which he is a member, he has
given just and great scandal to all good _Christians_. In
cases of _public scandal_, the laws of _Christianity_ and
of _common charity_ require the person who gives it to ask
_public pardon_, to _alter his public conduct_, or _publicly 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 the _Weekly Miscellany_ charges 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 he also 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 the _Weekly Miscellany_ can 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.”

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]

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 the _Weekly 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, when known, 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 the _Weekly 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 a _community of goods_ is 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
confusion and 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 a _Communist_, 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 a _communist_ and a _rioter_. 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 his _Weekly Miscellany_ in 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] We have 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.”

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 long to 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 to _sell 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, were the 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, Ingham expressed 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 a _mésalliance_, 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—

“Take their poor hearts, and let them be,
For ever closed to all but Thee,” etc.

Ingham had enemies, some of them, as already shown extremely bitter; but one of them, at least, was doubtless well pleased with Ingham’s marriage. By this event, the Vicar of Dewsbury got rid of a neighbour who had greatly troubled him; for Ingham now removed from Osset, the place of his nativity, to Aberford, a village about five miles from Tadcaster, and sixteen miles south-west of York; and here he continued to reside until his death.

It has been already stated that, on July 30th, 1742, nine months after his marriage, Ingham formally transferred his Yorkshire and Lancashire societies, above fifty in number, to the Moravians; and, henceforward, these societies were placed under the control of the Moravian ministerial conclave at Smith House, near Halifax.

Besides these societies, however, Ingham was connected with others. A great work had been wrought in the midland counties. The Rev. Jacob Rogers, a clergyman of the Established Church, had preached with much power and success at Bedford. Mr. Francis Okeley had assisted him; and thither Ingham repaired, and preached several times in St. Paul’s Church, to vast multitudes, who listened to him with profound attention. The number of converts increased daily, and were formed into societies, like those in Yorkshire. Being formed, the next point was how to manage them. Ingham was consulted; and, by his advice they, also, were placed under the care of Moravian ministers. This prepared the way for the settlement of the United Brethren at Bedford, in 1745; and for the erection of their chapel there in 1751.

By these arrangements, Ingham freed himself from an immense amount of personal responsibility. His old friend, Wesley, was not only forming societies, but ruling them. On the contrary, Ingham formed societies, and left them to be ruled by others. By this means, Moravianism found admission to the midland counties, and instituted a flourishing and permanent Church in Yorkshire and the neighbourhood round about. Ingham was left at liberty to be what he evidently liked,—an evangelist at large. He was also helped by earnest co-adjutors. There were the Batty Brothers,—Lawrence, William, and Christopher, of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, sons of Mr. Giles Batty, a man of considerable respectability, who resided at Newby Cote, near Settle. The three brothers were all eloquent and popular preachers. Then there was John Nelson, the sturdy Methodist, whom Ingham left behind at Birstal. Also David Taylor, formerly footman to Lady Ingham,—a man who had been converted under Ingham’s ministry, and who, notwithstanding certain vacillations, was a great and successful preacher, and raised societies in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and in some parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Others might be mentioned, if space permitted.

Ingham had no warmer friend than Whitefield, who watched the steps taken by his old acquaintance with the utmost interest. The following letter will not be considered out of place:—

“LONDON, _May 6th, 1743_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,—Your very kind letter I had not the pleasure
of receiving till yesterday. It was very acceptable, and knits
my heart closer to you than ever. I love your honest soul,
and long for that time when the disciples, of Christ, of
different sects, shall be joined in far closer fellowship one
with another. Our divisions have grieved my heart. I heartily
approve of the meeting of the chief labourers together.

“I am just returned from a circuit of about four hundred miles.
I have been as far as Haverfordwest, and was enabled to preach
with great power. Thousands and tens of thousands flocked
to hear the word, and the souls of God’s children were much
refreshed.

“I am glad the Lord hath opened fresh doors for you, my dear
brother. The rams’ horns are sounding about Jericho; surely
the towering walls will at length fall down. But we must have
patience. He that believeth doth not make haste. The rams’
horns must go round seven times. Our divisions in England have
the worst aspect, while they are now united in Wales; but even
this shall work for good, and cause the Redeemer’s glory to
shine more conspicuously. This is my comfort,—‘The government
is upon His shoulders,’ and He is a ‘wonderful counsellor.’

“But where am I running? Pardon me. I am writing to my dear Mr.
Ingham. I rejoice in the expectation of seeing you in town. I
hope to be in town at the time, and to enjoy some of our former
happy seasons. In the mean while, I salute you from my inmost
soul; and desire, as often as opportunity offers, a close
correspondence may be kept up between you and, my dear brother,
your most affectionate unworthy brother and servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Ingham was now one of the most influential members of the Moravian Church, in England; and, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. James Hutton, and the Sisters, Esther Kinchin, Mary Bowes, and Martha Ireland, set out on May 20th, 1743, to attend a Moravian Synod, to be held at Hirschberg, in Germany, from the first to the twelfth of July inclusive. This important Synod seems to have supervised the Moravian operations generally; including not only the affairs of the English Churches, but those of the Continent and Livonia, where fourteen hundred labourers of the Brethren were employed in endeavouring to bring men to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

So far as the English community was concerned, it was determined:

“That, the London Church should be regarded as a choir of
labourers (distinct from the Society and its general meetings,
etc.); each member of which was to consider him or herself as
in preparation, by the Lord, for future service in any station,
post, or office, to which He might call them.

“That this Church, as a body of labourers, consisting of only a
few souls who were wholly devoted to our Saviour, might enjoy
all the privileges and discipline of a Church elsewhere, which
the mere members of Society, by reason of their not dwelling
together, could not enjoy.

“That this Church should be in stillness, none knowing of it
but such as were in it. (See Rev. ii. 17.) This London Church,
also, should cleave to the Pilgrim Church, as the body to its
soul.

“The Pilgrim Church was described as a congregation of
labourers who go hither and thither; whom no one knows but he
to whom it is revealed.[103] Every one who has a whole mind to
our Saviour, is a member of it. It is composed of persons who
indissolubly cleave together, as a testimony in the Saviour’s
wounds, against all who are unfaithful; witnesses whom the Lord
will preserve in the hour of trial; souls who neither have nor
desire any abiding city in this life, and who labour for the
good of others among all religions, but never form themselves
into a sect.

“This Church is not the Moravian Church, but its servants,
sojourning so long in it as the children and servants of God,
or rather the spiritual Church of God, has freedom of action
and is acknowledged. This relationship to the Moravian Church
remains only so long as she herself abides faithful.

“The connection between London and Yorkshire was thus defined:
That London, as a choir of labourers (a small flock hidden
as yet and acting quietly), should provide labourers for
Yorkshire, and train up souls which were to be sent from
Yorkshire for the purpose; Yorkshire being the county where
our Saviour exhibited His Church openly, and where, for the
present, the congregation of the Brethren should be settled.
The London Church being private, was to have a particular
connection with Yorkshire, and be, in a measure, dependent upon
it, inasmuch as the chief elders were at this time there.”

The above are extracts from the Memoirs of James Hutton, at that period, the chief of the London Moravians. It is difficult for an outsider to understand and rightly interpret some of the expressions; but, upon the whole, it appears, 1. That the chief settlement of the Moravians was in Yorkshire; and, 2. That London was the training college of their ministers.

It is a well-known fact, that 1744 was a year of great anxiety. England was threatened with a French invasion, and with the unwelcome presence of the Jacobite Pretender. A large number of loyal addresses were presented to the king. Wesley wrote one on behalf of the Methodists, but his brother Charles successfully objected to its presentation, because its being sent, in the _name of the Methodists_, would constitute them a sect, at least would _seem to allow_ that they were a body distinct from the Church of England. The same difficulty was felt by the Moravians; and, on April 23, a Conference of six persons met in London, respecting the Address. Ingham went all the way from Yorkshire, to be present; and seems to have been the presiding spirit. The Conference perceived that, when so many addresses were being presented to the king, the Moravians might be regarded with suspicion, unless they also presented one; but the perplexity was how to designate the Moravian community. The Wesleys were unwilling for the Methodists to be regarded as Dissenters from the Church of England, and so were the Moravians. Brother Neisser, one of the Conference, attempted to solve the difficulty by observing, that “the English brethren, who had joined the Moravian Church, were not, on that account, Dissenters from the English Church.” They had taken such a step merely “to enjoy the blessed discipline of the Apostolic Churches, which was wanting in the English Church.” This was a solution scarcely sufficient to relieve the mind from doubt; but an address was written; and, on April 27, Ingham Hutton, and Bell went to Court, and, being admitted to the chamber of audience, Ingham delivered into the hand of the king the document which had been prepared. His Majesty, smiling graciously, accepted the same, and Ingham kissed his hand. The following is an extract:—

TO THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.—The humble Address of his
Majesty’s Protestant subjects, the United Brethren in England,
in union with the ancient Protestant Episcopal Bohemian and
Moravian Church:—

“Presented to his Majesty by the Rev. Mr. Ingham, Mr. Hutton,
Mr. Bell, Registrar of the said Congregation in London.

“MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,—May it please your sacred Majesty
graciously to accept this Address, which, with all humility, is
presented by your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects,
the United Brethren in England, in union with the Bohemian and
Moravian Church.

“We are, though despised and hated, and few in number, a
happy people, consisting of persons out of several sects and
parties of Protestants, who, from an earnest concern for our
own salvation, and a zeal for the good of others, are united
together; and, for the sake of her excellent discipline, are
in union with the ancient Protestant Episcopal Bohemian and
Moravian Church, one of the earliest witnesses against, and
sufferers by, the Papists; a sister of the Church of England;
their doctrines also, in the fundamental points, being the
same.”

Having thus defined themselves, they then declare affectionate loyalty to his “Majesty’s sacred person, family, and government;” and their “abhorrence for Popery and Popish pretenders,”—and conclude thus:—

“We, therefore, shall stand by your Majesty to the utmost of
our power, and especially by our prayers, which are our only
weapons.

“May the Lord of hosts direct all your Majesty’s councils and
undertakings, and turn the design of all your enemies into
foolishness! The Lord our God be with you. Amen.

“Presented in behalf of all the United Brethren in England,
in union with the Bohemian and Moravian Church. April 27,
1744.”[104]

This Address will help to define the position in which Ingham stood, with reference to the Moravian Church and the Church of England.

There is another important fact belonging to the year 1744. For some reason,—probably the disturbed state of the country,—the Brethren were prohibited preaching in the open air; and, from this period, Ingham relinquished all out-door services. In this, also, he differed from his quondam friend Wesley, who, for forty-seven years afterwards, persisted in “field-preaching.”

It has been already stated that Smith House, near Halifax, had been made the head-quarters of the Moravian community in Yorkshire. This took place about the year 1741. In 1743, Mr. Holmes, the proprietor of the place, died; and, on account of his widow not being well-disposed towards her peculiar tenants, the Brethren found it necessary to look out for another and more permanent establishment. Just at this juncture, Zinzendorf visited Yorkshire; and, one day, when climbing a mountain on which Bank House, near Pudsey, stood, he had such a sweet feeling and deep impression of the place, that he called it “_Lamb’s Hill_,” fully believing, that, it would become the site of a Moravian settlement. Strangely enough, the Hill soon afterwards was advertised for sale; in 1744, Ingham, at the request of a Moravian synod, bought it; and, on the 10th of May, 1746, the foundation stone of “Grace Hall, at Lamb’s Hill,” was laid amid great rejoicing. At six in the afternoon, the whole congregation came together, and sang a hymn, after which, Toltschig delivered an address. A letter was read from Lady Ingham, expressing her great satisfaction in regard to the building of the Hall; the stone was to have been laid by Ingham, but, being unexpectedly detained in Lancashire, the office was performed by Toltschig, and the ceremonial was concluded with singing songs of praise. The building was completed in 1748; choir houses and schools were added; private dwellings were erected; and a Moravian settlement was established, which, in 1763, was called Fulneck, Ingham all the while being the proprietor of the soil.[105] Wesley visited the place in 1747, and wrote:—

“We walked to the new house of the Germans. It stands on the
side of a hill, commanding all the vale beneath, and the
opposite hill The front is exceeding grand, though plain,
being faced with fine, smooth, white stone. The Germans
suppose it will cost, by the time it is finished, about three
thousand pounds: it is well if it be not nearer ten. But that
is no concern to the English Brethren; for they are told (and
potently believe), that ‘all the money will come from beyond
the sea.’”

Thirty-three years after this, Wesley paid another visit. The following extract, from his Journal, will show how Fulneck had increased:—