Chapter L: Tyerman (7)

“_1780. April 17._—I walked to Fulneck, the German settlement.
Mr. Moore showed us the house, chapel, hall, lodging-rooms, the
apartments of the widows, the single men, and single women.
He showed us likewise the workshops of various kinds, with
the shops for grocery, drapery, mercery, hardware, etc., with
which, as well as with bread from their bakehouse, they furnish
the adjacent country. I see not what but the mighty power of
God can hinder them from acquiring millions; as they, 1. Buy
all materials with ready money at the best hand; 2. Have above
a hundred young men, above fifty young women, many widows, and
above a hundred married persons; all of whom are employed from
morning to night, without any intermission, in various kinds of
manufactures, not for journeymen’s wages, but for no wages at
all, save a little very plain food and raiment; as they have,
3. A quick sale for all their goods, and sell them all for
ready money. But can they lay up treasure on earth, and, at the
same time, lay up treasure in heaven?”

This is not the place to write a history of Fulneck; but merely to show Ingham’s connection with it.

It was about this period (1746), that Ingham and Grimshaw, of Haworth, became acquainted; and once, and sometimes twice, a year, Grimshaw preached throughout Ingham’s circuit. The Societies increased rapidly, and spread, not only in Yorkshire, but also in Westmoreland, Cumberland, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, and Cheshire. General meetings of the preachers and exhorters were held with frequency, several of which were attended by the Countess of Huntingdon and Lady Margaret Ingham. Grimshaw invariably attended these meetings, and always preached, never troubling himself to ask the consent of the minister, or caring whether he liked it or not. Sometimes the two itinerant clergymen met with treatment far from pleasant.

As a specimen, the following may be given. Ingham, and Mr. Batty, one of his preachers, had been several times to Colne, and had succeeded in establishing a small society. Occasionally they were accompanied by Grimshaw; and, in this instance, the three commenced a meeting by the singing of a hymn. As soon as they begun, the Rev. George White, the notorious vicar of Colne and Marsden, rushed into the house, staff in hand, attended by the constable and a mob collected from the lowest and most depraved people of the town. White sprang towards Batty with intent to strike him. Ingham, perceiving the danger of his friend, instantly pulled him out of the reach of his clerical assailant, and retired into an adjoining room. The vicar and the constable threatened to put the master of the house into the parochial stocks, and attempted to take him away by force. The man demanded the constable’s authority; and the official, finding that he had none, was obliged to release his prisoner. White and his officer of the peace then insisted, that, Ingham and Grimshaw should sign a paper, promising not to preach in the parish of Colne during the next twelve months, under a penalty of fifty pounds. The demand was met by a firm refusal; and now the “Captain-General,” as White was designated, ordered the mob to lead away their captives. This was done, and, on the way, every friend who attempted to speak to them was abused and beaten. New proposals were made, that, Grimshaw and Ingham should give a written promise not to preach at Colne for six months, and then two; but without success. Magnanimously giving up the written document, the mob asked a promise _upon their word and honour_; but this proposal also was rejected. Finding it impossible to coerce the three evangelists, the rioters let loose their vengeance. Ingham, Grimshaw, and Batty were violently dragged along the road, with clubs brandished about their heads. They were pelted with mud and dirt; and, with Ingham’s coat torn and hanging on the ground, were conducted to the Swan Inn, there to receive magisterial justice at the hands of the Rev. Mr. White.[106]

In 1747, the chief labourers, Ingham, Gambold, Hutton, and Okeley, attended a Synod at Herrnhaag, in Germany. Many English affairs were carefully considered, especially the history of the English congregations since 1737, and the gradual separation of the Brethren’s labours from those of the Methodists. The peculiar choir regulations were gradually introduced into England. The Discourses of Zinzendorf, the Church Litany, the Liturgies, the Common Prayers of the Brethren, and the Hymns of the Day, were translated into English; and the more intimate the acquaintance of the English Brethren became with German formularies, the more the Methodistic element was banished from among them. The Brethren and Methodists moved _alongside_ of each other; and, not unfrequently, there was considerable flank-firing.

In July, 1748, Whitefield arrived in England, after an absence of nearly four years. Ingham wrote to his old friend, who sent the following affectionate reply:—

“LONDON, _August 11, 1748_.

“MY VERY DEAR MR. INGHAM,—Your kind letter, which I received
but yesterday, having been taken a little tour in the country,
both grieved and pleased me. Glad was I to find, that, my dear
old friend had not forgotten me; and yet sorry, at it were,
that, I had not written to him first. I was just going to put
pen to paper, when yours was brought to my hands. I read it
with joy; and now embrace the first opportunity of answering
it with the greatest pleasure. These words concerning our Lord
have always been weighty on my heart: ‘Having loved His own,
He loved them unto the end.’ They, therefore, that are most
like Him, will be most steady in their friendship, and not very
readily given to change. O my dear sir, what has the Redeemer
done for us since we used to take such sweet counsel together
at Oxford! Blessed be His name for giving you a heart still to
preach among poor sinners the unsearchable riches of Christ!
May you go on and prosper, and, maugre all opposition, see
Dagon fall everywhere before the ark! As for me, I am a poor
worthless pilgrim, and thought long ere now to be with Him,
who has loved and given Himself for me. But it seems, I am not
yet to die, but live. Oh that it may be to declare the work
of the Lord! I think, this is the thirteenth province I have
been in within this twelve-month, in each of which our Lord has
been pleased to set His seal to my unworthy ministry. I came
from _Bermudas_ last, where I left many souls seeking after
Jesus of Nazareth. In London, Bristol, Gloucester, and Wales,
the glorious Emmanuel, since my arrival, has appeared to His
people. In about a fortnight, I purpose leaving town again, in
order to go a circuit of about five hundred miles. I need not
desire you to pray for me: I need not tell you how glad I shall
be, whenever opportunity offers, to see you face to face. In
the meantime, let us correspond by letter. May Jesus bless it
to us both! I return cordial respects to Lady Margaret. I pray
the Lord to bless her and her little nursery. For the present,
Adieu!

“I am, my dear Mr. Ingham, ever yours,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

In course of time, Whitefield came to Yorkshire; and Ingham and Batty accompanied him throughout the county, and occasionally preached with him. They were also his companions into Lancashire and Cheshire. He preached four times at Aberford, the place of Ingham’s residence; and everywhere immense crowds attended him. The tour was a triumphal one; and, moreover, the two old Oxford friends were reunited. In one place, Whitefield mounted a temporary scaffold to address the thousands who stood before him; and, with a solemnity peculiarly his own, announced his text,—“It is appointed unto men once to die; but after this the judgment.” No sooner had the words escaped his lips, than a terrifying shriek issued from the centre of the congregation. Grimshaw hurried to the place where Whitefield stood, and shouted,—“Brother Whitefield, you stand among the dead and dying,—an immortal soul has been called into eternity,—the destroying angel is passing over the congregation,—cry aloud and spare not.” A few moments elapsed, and Whitefield re-announced his text; when another loud shriek was heard; a shriek which, in this instance, came from the spot where the Countess of Huntingdon and Lady Margaret Ingham were standing. A _second_ person had dropped down dead. Consternation was general; but Whitefield proceeded with the service, and, in a strain of tremendous eloquence, warned the wicked to flee from the wrath to come.[107] Who can adequately conceive, and paint the scene just mentioned? Whitefield on a platform,—thousands assembled before him,—two in the midst of them, in an instant, struck with death,—the Incumbent of Haworth rushing to the preacher with his irrepressible exclamation,—and two noble ladies, with Ingham at their side, gazing at the awful spectacle, their souls thrilled with feelings which no language can describe. And yet, if not in regard to the death occurrences, in point of solemn sublimity and religious grandeur, Whitefield’s life was full of such scenic facts.

Mention has been made of Ingham and Whitefield becoming reunited. During this same evangelistic tour, efforts were used to reunite Ingham and his old friend Wesley. Seven years before, they had separated. Both were intensely conscientious, and were actuated by the purest religious motives; but their course of action was different. Ingham was a Moravian: Wesley was a Methodist. The two designations were often used synonymously; and yet their meanings were widely different. By order of Zinzendorf, an advertisement had been published, in the _Daily Advertiser_, declaring, that, the Moravians had no connection with the Wesleys. Angry pamphlets, on both sides, had been issued; and angry feelings, both among Moravians and Methodists, had been kindled. It was hardly possible for Ingham and Wesley to live on the same terms of intimate friendship as they had done at Oxford and in Georgia. There is no evidence, that, they ever _quarrelled_; but they were undoubtedly _estranged_. This was painful both to themselves and to a certain circle of their friends; and, as above stated, means were used to reunite them. Hence the following, extracted from a letter, addressed to Wesley, by the Rev. Mr. Milner, Incumbent of Chipping, in Lancashire, who accompanied Whitefield, Ingham, and Grimshaw in their glorious visits to Manchester, Stockport, and other places:—

“CHIPPING, _January 11, 1750_.

“MY MOST DEAR AND REV. BROTHER, WHOM I LOVE IN THE TRUTH,—I
have had twice the pleasure of seeing Mr. Ingham; and must
say, there is a great deal of amiable sweetness in his whole
behaviour. I have often and earnestly wished that he was
disentangled from the Moravians, and cordially _one_ with you
in promoting the interests of the gospel. The last time I saw
him, he was employed in reconciling two of the Brethren, who
had run great hazards and suffered much hardship in the service
of the gospel. He allows you incomparably the preference for
prudence; but says, you have not done the count” (Zinzendorf)
“justice. He adds, that, he endeavoured to prevail with you not
to publish the Difference;[108] and thought he had prevailed,
till he heard that it was published;—and that he would
gladly have been reconciled, and got Mr. W⸺d” (Whitefield)
“to go from his house to N⸺e” (Newcastle), “to bring about a
reconciliation; but you were not inclined to it,—‘the time
being not yet come.’ At first, I looked upon the difference, as
that betwixt Paul and Barnabas, which was a furtherance of the
gospel of Christ; but since I knew more of the doctrine of the
_still Brethren_, I have not had the same favourable opinion
of them. Yet, I cannot help thinking, Mr. Ingham is happy. May
some good Providence bring you speedily together! For, surely,
such souls must glow with love at meeting, and all unkindness
fly at first sight!”[109]

So far as it concerned Ingham, things were now coming to a crisis. For about a dozen years, he had been a Moravian; but Moravianism, always eccentric, was now becoming arrogant. Everything was carried on upon a higher scale, both in diet and clothing, with a view to the benevolent but impracticable design of abolishing the distinction between the different stations in life. This, however, only tended to make persons of low degree exalt themselves above their station in society, which, in more respects than one, was really injurious. Then there was also a season of trial, which is known in the Brethren’s Church, under the name of ‘_the great sifting_,’—especially from 1745 to 1749. The Yorkshire Diary of the Brethren, 1747-1749, speaks of “the _light and trifling spirit_, which had crept into almost all the congregations, both in doctrine and practice;” and joins “in thanksgiving to the Head of the Church, who had caused a deep shame and contrition to take place in the hearts of the true Brethren and Sisters.” In June, 1749, Zinzendorf addressed a pompous letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving him a catalogue of the Moravian Bishops, Administrators of Tropuses, and Evangelics. He spoke of himself as, “Lewis, by Divine Providence, Bishop, Liturgus, and Ordinary of the Churches known by the name of the Brethren; and, under the auspices of the same, Advocate during life, with full power over the hierarchy of the Slavonic Unity, Custos rotulorum, and Prolocutor both of the general Synod, and of the Tropus of Instruction.” In a postscript, he made a characteristic attack on Sherlock, Bishop of London, as follows:—

“P.S. The Bishop of London has acted wrongfully and most
injudiciously for the interest of his own Church; inasmuch, as
he has not only declined intercourse with the Brethren, but
likewise communicated a private decision to a certain Deacon
of our Church. He has sinned against the first principles of
uprightness, equity, and prudence; and, by doing so, has done
dishonour to the ecclesiastical order. It is not your part
to threaten and to act insolently, but cautiously; for your
interest, and not ours, is concerned.

“LEWIS, Bishop, with his own hand.”

To say the least, this was hardly modest, on the part of a foreigner, when addressed to the highest dignitary of the English Church. It is also noticeable, that, in the list of Bishops, Administrators of Tropuses, Evangelics, and Primary Ministers, sent to his Grace of Canterbury, the name of Ingham is not included. Why was this?

Further,—a new “Church Litany,” of great length, and curious construction, had been published, and was now in use in the Congregations of the Brethren. Lindsey House, in Chelsea, was bought of Sir Hans Sloane; and, at a great expense, was converted into the head-quarters of English Moravianism. Zinzendorf was the pope of the English Brotherhood. All bishops and elders were subordinate to him; and, under the name “Papa,” he was exclusively the ruler of their Church. He caused to be published a Hymn-book, in two volumes; the second of which was filled with doggerel of the worst description. He had had the effrontery to ask the English Parliament to pass an Act, not only recognising the _Unitas Fratrum_ as an ancient Protestant Episcopal Church; but also exempting them from taking oaths; from being summoned as jurymen; and, in the American colonies, from being called upon to engage in military service. Marvellous to relate, all this was granted; but one demand of the Moravian “Papa” was rejected. He asked for power to be vested in himself, to enjoin upon the bishops and ministers of the Church of England to give certificates, that, the parties holding them, were members of the _Unitas Fratrum_; and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions specified. The Lord Chancellor objected to this putting of the prelates and clergy of the Established Church beneath the power of a foreign count. “Against the will of the king,” exclaimed this modest man; “I would not like to press the matter; but a _limitation of the Act_ I will not accept. Everything or nothing. No modifications.” This was German rodomontade; for, rather than lose his Bill, he relinquished his claim to be empowered to coerce the bishops and clergy of the English Church to grant the certificates. The Act of Parliament was passed on the 12th of May, 1749. A few months afterwards, Zinzendorf published a folio volume, entitled “Acta Fratrum in Angliâ,” and containing, besides the Moravian public negotiations in England, an exposition of the Moravian doctrine, liturgy, etc. The book was full of repulsive jargon; and the less that is said respecting it the better.

Besides all this, an enormous debt had been contracted. A crop of lawsuits sprung up. Zinzendorf and others were in danger of arrest. Bankruptcy was imminent; disgrace was great; and scandals of all kinds were rife. Henry Rimius, “Aulic Counsellor to his late Majesty the King of Prussia,” published an octavo pamphlet of 177 pages, in which Zinzendorf was accused of flagrant falsehood. Wesley read the pamphlet as soon as it was printed; and wrote, “I still think several of the inconsiderable members of that” (Moravian) “community, are upright; but I fear their governors wax worse and worse,—having their conscience seared as with a hot iron.”

Whitefield, in 1753, published “An Expostulatory Letter, addressed to Nicholas Lewis, Count Zinzendorf, and Lord Advocate of the Unitas Fratrum,” in which he charges Zinzendorf and his friends with “Misguiding many honest-hearted Christians; with distressing, if not ruining, numerous families; and with introducing a whole farrago of superstitious, not to say idolatrous, fopperies into the English nation.”

Another pamphlet was published, at the same time, and created considerable excitement. Its long title will suggest an idea of its contents. “A true and authentic Account of Andrew Frey: containing the occasion of his coming among the Hernhutters, or Moravians; his Observations on their Conferences, Casting Lots, Marriages, Festivals, Merriments, Celebrations of Birth-Days, impious Doctrines, and fantastical Practices, Abuse of charitable Contributions, linen Images, ostentatious Profuseness, and Rancour against any who in the least differ from them; and the Reasons for which he left them; together with the Motives for publishing this Account. Faithfully transcribed from the German.”

Wesley writes,—

“_1753, November 3rd._ I read over Andrew Frey’s reasons for
leaving the Brethren. Most of what he says, I knew before; yet,
I cannot speak of them in the manner in which he does; I pity
them too much to be bitter against them.”

It would not be pleasant to enter into further details. Enough has been said to show that, Ingham had sufficient reasons to sever his connections with the Moravians. He had found the money for the purchase of the land about Grace Hall (Fulneck); and, in 1753, asked for the repayment; but money was not forthcoming, and he agreed to receive a yearly rental of £30 instead of it.[110]

The particulars of Ingham’s separation from the Moravian community have not been published; but he now formed a circuit of his own of about five hundred miles, and had several thousand followers. Members were received by laying on of hands; they had elders; and the feast of charity; and the Lord’s Supper once a month.

Ingham was the chief of the new sect in Yorkshire and the neighbouring counties. One of his principal co-workers was Mr. J. Allen; who, in 1752, and when only eighteen years of age, became a preacher in the Inghamite connexion. Allen was the eldest son of Oswald Allen, Esq., of Gayle, in the county of York. His father intended him for the ministry in the Established Church, and placed him under the care of a clergyman, whose inconsistency of conduct seems to have shocked his pupil, and to have made him doubt the propriety of entering into holy orders. In 1748, he was sent to Scorton School, near Richmond, in Yorkshire, conducted by the Rev. Mr. Noble. In the year following, he had the opportunity of hearing Ingham preach, and was converted. In 1751, he was admitted into St. John’s College, Cambridge; and, a year afterwards, as already stated, began himself to preach. For many years, he was one of the most useful and popular preachers in Ingham’s connexion; and his conduct throughout life was becoming a minister of Christ.[111]

Besides Allen, the three Battys, already mentioned, Lawrence, William, and Christopher,—Ingham’s other coadjutors were Hunter and Brogden, both of whom had been in the British army; also James Hartley, Richard Smith, and James Crossley, all of whom had been awakened under the thundering preaching of Grimshaw, the Incumbent of Haworth; and the first and second of whom ultimately became pastors of Baptist congregations; and the third, a minister of an Independent Church at Bradford. Mr. Molesworth, likewise, of Thornhill, and Mr. Fleetwood Churchill, gentlemen descended from families of rank, and moving in the upper ranks of life, were faithful fellow-labourers. All these were earnest evangelists, and most of them suffered serious persecution for the Word of God, and the testimony which they held.[112]

Ingham’s separation from the Moravians altered his relationship to the Methodists; and, at Wesley’s Conference, held in 1753, it was asked, “Can we unite, if it be desired, with Mr. Ingham?—_Answer_: We may now behave to him with all tenderness and love, and unite with him when he returns to the Old Methodist doctrine.”[113] Two years after this, Wesley held his yearly Conference at Leeds; and Ingham summoned several of his preachers to meet him there for the purpose of attending the Conferential sittings. Wesley admitted Ingham; but his coadjutors were excluded. Was it Ingham’s wish to amalgamate his Societies and preachers with the Methodists? This is a question, we cannot answer. One matter, however, was discussed in which Ingham, as an ordained Clergyman of the Church of England, must have felt interest. Wesley writes:—

“The point on which we desired all the preachers to speak their
minds at large was, ‘Whether we ought to separate from the
Church?’ Whatever was advanced, on one side or the other, was
seriously and calmly considered; and, on the third day, we were
all fully agreed in that general conclusion,—that, whether it
was lawful or not, it was not expedient.”[114]

Supposing that Ingham wished for an amalgamation, this was a decisive answer to his proposal, for already Ingham had separated from the Church, not only by the formation of societies and the employment of lay preachers, but also, and especially, by the institution of separate sacramental services.

Some time after the Conference at Leeds, Ingham went to Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, and thence to Ashby, on a visit to Lady Huntingdon. During his stay, he preached frequently, at her ladyship’s and in the neighbourhood, to large congregations. On his return to Yorkshire, the Countess accompanied him, and visited most of his northern societies.

Whilst she was in Yorkshire, a conference of his preachers was held at Winewall, when, as at Wesley’s first Conference, in 1744, doctrine and discipline were discussed.

In reference to _Doctrine_, it was agreed:—1. That Justification consists in the forgiveness of sins, and an imputation of Christ’s righteousness; and, that, the instrumental cause of this is faith in Christ. 2. That, sanctification consists, not in holy actions, but, in the divine life, new heart and spirit, which are given by Jesus Christ at our justification; and love, joy, and peace, and all the graces or fruits of the Spirit. 3. That, all good works spring from this, as fruit from a tree.

With regard to _Church Government_, it was resolved, That, there should be a _general overseer_, chosen and appointed by the Trustees and by the consent of the Societies.

As was natural, Ingham was set apart to this office; and he proceeded to elect one of the Batty brothers and Mr. Allen, as fellow-helpers; who, after giving an account of their conversion and call to the ministry, and, being examined respecting the doctrines they had preached, and intended to preach in future, were then and there solemnly ordained, by the laying on of Ingham’s hands, and prayer.

In this respect, Ingham was far ahead of his old friend Wesley; for it was not till twenty-eight years after this, that Wesley assumed episcopal functions, by ordaining two of his preachers for America.

From this period, Lady Huntingdon used to call Ingham a _Bishop_; and, in doing so, her ladyship was not seriously wrong. There can be little doubt, that, Ingham, like Wesley, held the opinion, that, “bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain”; and, assuming this to be correct, there can be no question, that, he, being an acknowledged Presbyter of the Church of England, was also a Bishop.

But to let that pass. Lady Huntingdon, though on the most friendly terms with Ingham, was very far from being satisfied with several of the rules of the Inghamite Societies; and, hence, whilst a visitor at Ingham’s house at Aberford, she conferred with him respecting an amalgamation with the Methodists. Whitefield proceeded to Newcastle-on-Tyne, where, it is said, he met the two Wesleys, and was commissioned by Ingham to offer them his house at Aberford, for the purpose of discussing the subject. Charles Wesley readily assented; but his brother as decidedly objected; and, from that time forth, no further steps were taken to effect a union with the Methodists.

Charles Wesley became an ardent friend and advocate of Ingham. Hence the following extracts from his journal:—

“_1756, October 1st._—I had an opportunity of vindicating my
old friend, Benjamin Ingham. It is hard a man should be hanged
for his looks,—for the _appearance_ of Moravianism. Their
spirit and practices he has as utterly renounced as we have:
their manner and phrase cannot as soon be shaken off.”

Again:—

“_1756, October 7th._—I rode on to Aberford. My old friend, Mr.
Ingham, was labouring in the vineyard; but I had the happiness
to find Lady Margaret at home, and their son Ignatius. She
informed me, that, his round takes in about four hundred
miles; that, he has six fellow-labourers, and one thousand
souls in his Societies, most of them, converted. I sincerely
rejoiced in his success. Ignatius was hardly pacified at my not
preaching. We passed an hour and a half very profitably, and
set out again.”

The Rev. William Romaine, also, became one of Ingham’s frequent visitors, and was received by him and Lady Margaret with every mark of respect and affectionate attention. Indeed, at a period when Romaine’s stipend was quite inadequate to provide sustenance for his family, his necessities were often liberally met by Lady Ingham’s bounty. Ingham sometimes accompanied him in his preaching excursions into several parts of the county of Durham; Romaine preaching wherever he obtained a church, and Ingham in the Methodist Chapels and private houses. Long after this, Romaine remarked in reference to Ingham’s societies,—

“If ever there was a Church of Christ upon earth, that was one.
I paid them a visit, and had a great mind to join them. There
was a blessed work of God among that people, till that horrid
blast from the north came upon them and destroyed all.”

This horrid northern blast must be explained. In 1755, Hervey published his “Theron and Aspasio,” in three octavo volumes. In 1757, Robert Sandeman issued an elaborate reply, in two volumes octavo, entitled, “Letters on Theron and Aspasio, addressed to the Author of that Work.” Very erroneous were some of the views of Sandeman, but, all who have read his publication must admit that he was a man of considerable ability. His work, however, was blemished, not only by heterodox expositions of holy Scripture, but by severe attacks on the chief evangelical preachers and authors of the day. A furious controversy succeeded; and a large number of pamphlets and tracts bearing on the subject were printed. Sandeman’s volumes themselves were in great demand, and, in less than five years, three editions of them were published. His principal doctrine, from which all his other erroneous teachings sprang, was his doctrine of Christian faith. Hervey, Whitefield, Erskine, and others, substantially acquiesced in Wesley’s definition, namely, “Christian faith is not only an assent to the whole gospel of Christ, but also a full reliance on the blood of Christ; a trust in the merits of His life, death, and resurrection; a recumbency on Him as our atonement and our life, _as given for us, and living in us_.” Perhaps it would sound less sectarian to say, that the whole of these distinguished men held the doctrine of the Homilies of the Church of England: “The right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe, that holy Scripture and the articles of our faith are true, but also, to have a sure trust and confidence, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ; whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey His commandments.” Or, again; a man’s “sure trust and confidence in God, that, by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God.” “Three things must go together in our justification. Upon God’s part, His great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, the satisfaction of God’s justice, by the offering His body and shedding His blood, with fulfilling the law perfectly and thoroughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ. So that, in our justification, there is not only God’s mercy and grace, but His justice also. And so the grace of God doth not shut out the righteousness of God in our justification; but only shutteth out the righteousness of man; that is to say, the righteousness of our works. And, therefore, St. Paul declareth nothing on the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and living faith, which itself is the gift of God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified. But it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified; yet they justify not altogether.” (_Homilies of the Church of England._)

Sandeman’s views were widely different, as a few extracts from his book will show:—

“Every doctrine which teaches us to do, or endeavour any thing
toward our acceptance with God, stands opposed to the doctrine
of the Apostles; which, instead of directing us what to do,
sets before us all that the most disquieted conscience can
require, in order to acceptance with God, as already done and
finished by Jesus Christ. What Christ has done, is that which
pleases God; what He hath done, is that which quiets the guilty
conscience of man as soon as he knows it; so that, whenever
he hears of it, he has no occasion for any other question but
this, ‘Is it true or not?’ If he finds it true, he is happy;
if not, he can reap no comfort by it. If, then, we slight the
comfort arising from the bare persuasion of this, it must be
owing, at bottom, to our slighting this bare truth, and to
our slighting the bare work of Christ, and our considering it
as too narrow a foundation whereon to rest the whole of our
acceptance with God.” (Vol. i., p. 17.)

“Whatever doctrine teaches us to think, that our acceptance
with God is begun by our own good endeavours, seconded by
Divine aid, or even first prompted by the Divine influence,
leads us to look for acceptance with God by our own
righteousness; for whatever I do, however assisted or prompted,
is still my own work. Aspasio tells us, ‘Faith is a real
persuasion that Christ died _for me_.’ This account of faith
somewhat resembles the arch of a bridge thrown over a river,
having the one end settled on a rock, and the other on sand or
mud. That Christ died, is indeed a truth fully ascertained in
the Scriptures; that Christ died _for me_, is a point not so
easily settled. This is a point which the Scripture nowhere
ascertains; so far from it, that it often affirms the final
perdition of many, not merely hearers of the gospel, but who
have heard and received it with joy; yea of those who have made
such progress, that their only deficiency is, that their fruit
came not to perfection.” (Ibid. p. 20.)

“Men are justified by the knowledge of a righteousness finished
in the days of Tiberius; and this knowledge operates upon them,
and leads them to work righteousness.” (Vol. ii., p. 190.)

“The change made upon a man by the gospel, is called
_repentance unto life_,—a change of a man’s mind to love the
truth, which always carries in it a sense of shame and regret
at his former opposition to it.” (Ibid. p. 193.)

“No man can be assured, that his sins are forgiven him, but
in as far as he is freed from the service of sin, and led to
work righteousness; for the favour of God can only be enjoyed
in studying to do those things which are well pleasing in His
sight.” (Ibid. p. 194.)

“When once the saving truth is admitted in the conscience of
any man, it becomes, as it were, a new _instinct_ in him,
encouraging him to draw near to God, providing him with an
answer to the condemning voice of the law, which haunted his
conscience before, and opposing the natural pride of his heart,
in the exercise of which he formerly lived. By this instinct,
he is led to desire ‘the sincere milk of the word, that he may
grow thereby.’ And he arrives at the proper consciousness and
enjoyment of life, when he comes to full age, and, _by reason
of use, has his senses exercised to discern both good and
evil_.” (Ibid. p. 200.)

“If, notwithstanding our natural bias against the gospel, our
heart condemn us not, as destitute of love to that truth which
the world hates, then have we confidence toward God, even as
much confidence as the testimony of our own conscience can give
us. Yet this is but one witness, and needs to be supported.
Here then the Spirit of the truth gives His testimony, as a
second witness supporting the former. And this He does, by
shedding abroad in the heart, such an abundant sense of the
divine love as casts out the anxious fear of coming short of
life everlasting. Thus, that love to the truth, which formerly
wrought in the way of painful desire, attended with many fears,
is perfected, by being crowned with the highest enjoyment it is
capable of in this mortal state.” (Ibid. p. 203.)

“Perhaps it may be thought needful, that I should define what I
mean by the _popular doctrine_; especially as I have considered
many as preachers thereof, who differ remarkably from each
other; and particularly as I have ranked amongst them Mr.
Wesley, who may justly be reckoned one of the most virulent
reproachers of God that this island has produced. I consider
all those as teachers of the _popular doctrine_, who seek to
have credit and influence among the people, by resting our
acceptance with God, not simply on _what Christ hath done_,
but more or less on _the use we make of Him_, and the advance
we make toward Him, or some secret desire, wish, or sigh to
do so; or on something we feel or do concerning Him, by the
assistance of some kind of grace or spirit; or, lastly, on
something we employ Him to do, or suppose He is yet to do for
us. In sum, all who would have us to be conscious of something
else than the bare truth of the gospel; all who would have us
to be conscious of some beginning of a change to the better; or
some desire, however faint, toward such change, in order to our
acceptance with God.” (Ibid. p. 300.)

Perhaps, the reader has had enough of the misty dogmas of Robert Sandeman. The foregoing extracts contain the kernel of his heresy. By the obedience and sufferings of Christ, a number of persons, the elect, are accepted or justified of God. The gospel declares this. It is the sinner’s privilege and duty to believe this general statement;—not to _believe on_ Christ as _his_ Saviour (for he has no authority to do that), but simply to become persuaded of the truthfulness of the gospel’s general declaration, that a select number are accepted of God, solely and entirely, because of the finished work of Christ. This persuasion, in the course of time, and in the case of the accepted persons, produces what Sandeman calls _repentance unto life_. For a season, they have “anxious fears of coming short of everlasting life.” Their love to the truth works “in the way of painful desire, attended with many fears.” At length, however, they attain to such a state, that their conscience testifies, they are “not destitute of love to that truth which the world hates;” and now “the Spirit of the truth gives His testimony, as a second witness, by shedding abroad in the heart such an abundant sense of the divine love, as perfects their love to the truth, and crowns it with the highest enjoyment it is capable of in this mortal state.”

This, in brief, was Sandeman’s way of salvation—a huge heresy tagged to the glorious truth, that man is accepted of God solely through the meritorious work and sufferings of Christ. This is not the place for its refutation. Suffice it to remark, that, in 1759, Ingham read Sandeman’s “Letters on Theron and Aspasio,” and also Glass’s “Testimony of the King of Martyrs;” and that this was the means of bringing upon Ingham’s societies the “horrid blast from the north,” so strongly deprecated by the Rev. William Romaine.

The Rev. John Glass, about the year 1728, had been expelled from the established Church of Scotland, and had formed a number of Churches conformable, in their institution and discipline, to what he apprehended to be the plan of the first Churches of Christianity. Sandeman was an elder in one of these Churches. The chief practices in which they differed from others were:—their weekly administration of the Lord’s Supper; their love feasts, of which every member was not only allowed, but required to partake, and which consisted in their dining together at each other’s houses in the interval between the morning and afternoon services; their kiss of charity, used on this occasion, at the admission of a new member, and at other times, when they deemed it to be necessary or proper; their weekly collection before the Lord’s Supper, for the support of the poor, and defraying other expenses; mutual exhortation; abstinence from blood and things strangled; washing each other’s feet, the precept concerning which, as well as other precepts, they understood literally; community of goods, so far as that every one was to consider all that he had in his possession and power as liable to the calls of the poor and the Church; and unlawfulness of laying up treasures on earth, by setting them apart for any distant future, or uncertain use; the allowing of public and private diversions so far as they were not connected with circumstances really sinful; and the employment of a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops, in each Church, and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of discipline, but the administration of the Lord’s Supper. In the choice of these elders, want of learning, and engagements in trade, were not regarded as disqualifications for office, but a second marriage was. The elders were ordained by prayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the right hand of fellowship. In their discipline, they were strict and severe, and thought themselves obliged to separate from the communion of all such religious societies as appeared to them not to profess the simple truth to be their only ground of hope, and who did not walk in obedience to it. In every Church transaction, also, they esteemed unanimity to be absolutely necessary.

Such were the Glassites or Sandemanians more than a hundred years ago. In an evil hour, after reading the publications of Glass and Sandeman, Ingham sent his fellow-helpers, Mr. Batty and Mr. Allen, _privately_ to Scotland, for the purpose of acquiring more distinct and detailed information respecting this Scottish sect. At Edinburgh, they were introduced to Sandeman; and at Dundee, to Glass; and returned to Yorkshire thoroughly converted to the Sandemanian theology and discipline. Warm debates took place in Ingham’s societies respecting the nature of a _true_ Church, and respecting their former views of religious experience. Many became jealous of the authority which Ingham exercised; but he steadfastly adhered to the validity of his commission as general overseer, and wished the dissatisfied to withdraw. Frequent attempts were made to reconcile the two contending parties: the Countess of Huntingdon wrote letters; Romaine paid a personal visit; and Whitefield prayed and wept; but all was ineffectual. Disputes without end arose; excommunications followed; and thus the great work over which Ingham had most religiously watched, was nearly wrecked. Out of upwards of eighty flourishing Churches, only thirteen remained under Ingham’s care. This was probably the severest trial of his life, and was one from the effects of which he never afterwards recovered.[115] It would be incorrect and uncharitable to assert, that, all who were excommunicated or seceded, ceased to be Christians. Dr. Stevens says, “many of them were merged in the Wesleyan or Dissenting bodies, especially in the class of Scotch Presbyterians called Daleites.”[116] Mr. Allen formed a number of them into a separate Church, and officiated as their pastor until his death, in 1804. The Messrs. Batty also continued to preach; and, in 1761, published, at Kendal, a Hymn Book of 136 pp., entitled, “A Collection of Hymns for the Use of those that seek, and those that have, Redemption in the Blood of Christ.” Many of the hymns are thorough doggerel. Some other of the seceding preachers also “remained useful men; and the disaster was much relieved by the consideration that Wesleyan Methodism took general possession of Yorkshire, and by the fact, that two Methodist orders were hardly necessary at the time of Ingham’s failure.”

Efforts were not wanting to conserve and perpetuate the work. In September, 1760, Lady Huntingdon and the Rev. William Romaine joined Ingham, at a general meeting of his societies, held at Wheatley, when the choice of Church officers was determined by lot. They also visited, in company, several of the brotherhoods in Yorkshire and Lancashire, Ingham and Romaine preaching alternately, almost every day. At Thinoaks, in Craven, where they remained several days, there was a large assemblage of people, and two elders were ordained. There, also, it was agreed to recommend to the different societies in the connexion to make collections every Sabbath; and the following circular was issued:—

“DEAR BRETHREN,—Being mindful of the words of the Apostle
Paul, we have determined to recommend to our Societies to have
voluntary collections on the first day of the week, to defray
all expenses relative to the preachers, meetings, etc., etc.
Farewell!”

Nothing more need be said of this unhappy schism, except quoting a sentence from Wesley’s sermon, preached at the laying of the foundation stone of City Road Chapel, in 1777. With an undoubted reference to Ingham, he remarked:—

“Nearly twenty years ago, immediately after solemn consultation
on the subject, a clergyman, who had heard the whole, said,
with great earnestness, ‘In the name of God, let nothing move
you to recede from this resolution. God is with you for a
truth; and so He will be, while you continue in the Church; but
whenever the Methodists leave the Church, God will leave them.’
Lord, what is man! In a few months after, Mr. Ingham himself
left the Church, and turned all the societies under his care
into congregations of Independents. And what was the event? The
same that he had foretold! They swiftly mouldered into nothing.”

Unlike his friend Wesley, Ingham made but little use of the printing-press. In 1748, he published a Hymn Book, of 96 pp., 12mo, with the title, “A Collection of Hymns for Societies. Leeds: Printed by James Lister, 1748.” The book, now extremely scarce, contains eighty-eight hymns; five of which are translations from the German, by John Wesley; fifteen are by Watts; five by Cennick; and three by Charles Wesley. How many Ingham himself contributed is not known. The following serves as a sort of Preface:—

“In singing, two things ought to be regarded. The one is to
sing in outward harmony, keeping the tune; and, if we do not
understand it, ’tis better to be silent and hear others, or
to sing low and after others, that we may not make a discord,
which is disagreeable, and causes confusion; and, in general,
it is not well to sing so very high and loud. But the other and
more material thing to be regarded is, seriously to mind what
we are about,—to be present with our thoughts,—to meditate upon
the matter; and, above all, to sing with grace in the heart to
the Lord. This makes singing sweet and heavenly; and, without
this, our singing can neither be edifying to ourselves nor to
others.”

Ingham’s only other publication was a small volume, entitled, “A Discourse on the Faith and Hope of the Gospel. Leedes: Printed for the Author, by Griffith Wright, 1763.” 12mo, 207 pp.

This, though a small, was an important book, for it contained the views of Ingham, on the chief doctrines of the Christian religion, immediately after he had read the works of Glass and Sandeman. There can be no question, that, he substantially embraced the dogmas which they had so boldly propounded. The following extracts are confirmative of this. The reader will excuse the length of them, on the ground, that they exhibit the principal articles of Ingham’s creed towards the close of life. The book is pervaded by a fine Christian spirit; and, here and there, almost waxes eloquent.

“Every true and real minister of Jesus Christ hath a divine
commission, or is sent of God.” (Preface.)

“I believe, that the whole counsel of God to the Church is
faithfully recorded in the holy Scriptures.” (Ibid.)

“I believe no servant of Christ hath now any new revelation
to deliver; but, I also believe, that no man can clearly
comprehend or truly understand the holy Scriptures without
the illumination of the Holy Ghost. Yet, the Holy Ghost
neither revealeth, teacheth, impresseth, or applieth anything
to any person now, but what is either expressly written, or
is agreeable to the analogy of faith delivered, in the holy
Scriptures.” (Ibid.)

“It is my opinion, that, both the doctrine and also the
very words of Scripture, in the languages wherein they were
originally written, were inspired by the Holy Ghost. The
translation of the Holy Scriptures into the modern tongues
hath been a great blessing, and of very great use to the cause
of Christianity. Yet, men of learning, who have studied the
originals, know that some places are falsely translated, and
others weakly and lamely. It would be well worth the labour of
all the learned men in every nation to conspire together to
publish an accurate translation.” (p. 5.)

“To believe a thing meaneth to assent to, and credit it as
true. To believe _in_ a thing meaneth to confide or trust in
it, to rely or depend on it.” (p. 6.)

“The faith of the Gospel is the believing of God’s testimony
concerning Christ and His righteousness, and believing in Jesus
Christ and His most perfect and Divine righteousness, as the
only sure ground of the hope of eternal life.” (p. 9.)

“Sinners are neither justified for their own believing, nor
their own obeying, nor for both together; neither for the
truth or sincerity of their believing, or any act of faith,
nor anything they have done, can do, or ever will do. Neither
are they justified for anything wherein they differ from
others, or excel others, nor for anything done or wrought in
them, or received by them; for the whole and sole cause of the
justification of sinners is the active and passive obedience of
Jesus Christ, called the righteousness of God, ‘which is unto
all and upon all them that that believe.’” (p. 13.)

“This work of Christ,—His most perfect and divine
righteousness,—His obedience in all things, and even unto
death, is the whole and sole cause of the salvation of
sinners. There needeth no other requisite, neither less nor
more, neither little nor great. This alone is complete and
all-sufficient.” (p. 35.)

“Yet, the generality of men lay the greatest stress upon
something else. And even those who lay some stress upon it more
or less connect something else with it, whereon they also lay
some stress, more or less. So that they do not believe that
God is well and fully pleased with the work of Christ, as alone
sufficient for salvation without anything else at all; but that
God is placable, or willing to come to terms with them, upon
condition that they themselves first perform those other things
which they think necessary, either in whole or in part, as
preliminaries to make peace with God.” (p. 39.)

“If any should object, and say, that the Lord Jesus and the
apostles connected repentance with faith and remission of sins,
I allow it. Repentance and faith are duties required by the
gospel, because God commandeth all men everywhere to repent
and believe the gospel. It is man’s duty to do whatever God
commandeth.” (p. 40.)

“Repentance to life is the change made upon the mind by the
gospel, when a man is turned from darkness to light, and
from the power of Satan unto God. His understanding being
enlightened, he ceases to work for acceptance; he turns to God,
believing that He is well pleased in His beloved Son. This
repentance, as well as faith, is the gift of God. And they are
both given at the same time.” (p. 40.)

“Some modern divines have defined faith to be _a confidence
that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me_; but this is not
the faith of the gospel, though it hath passed current for it
with many for a long time. It must indeed be granted that, if
a person can say that Christ hath loved him and given Himself
for him, upon as good ground as the Apostle Paul said it of
himself, he is a true believer. Yet it is presumed that many
believe the gospel and will be saved, who neither can, in
truth, nor dare say this.” (p. 42.)

“No one hath the assurance of his eternal salvation upon his
first believing the gospel, or can have it, till his faith hath
wrought some time, more or less, by love. No man can be assured
that he shall be eternally saved without any possibility of
falling away, but by the sealing, witness, or testimony of the
Holy Ghost. But that no one is sealed by the Spirit upon his
first believing the gospel is proved by Ephesians i. 13.” (p.
43.)

“Those, who have the faith of the gospel, have not obtained it
by their own labour, or by any acts exerted by their own minds;
but it hath been, freely given to them from above, by Him who
of His own will begetteth His people with the word of truth.
So that it is as easy to believe in the gospel, when Christ is
revealed to any person, as it is to see or hear, when a man
hath eyes and ears.” (p. 60.)

“The faith of the gospel is a working faith. Justification and
sanctification are inseparably connected together.” (p. 90.)

“All true believers are sanctified, but they are not equally
sanctified; for there are children, young men, and fathers
in Christ. They are sanctified in all the faculties of their
souls, but not completely sanctified as yet in any one of
them.” (p. 138.)

“Some argue, _that God, in the word of the gospel, maketh an
offer of Christ and His righteousness, as a free gift, to all
indefinitely who hear the gospel; and also promiseth remission
of sins and eternal life; and, further, that God’s word is a
sufficient warrant to every one to lay claim to the gift, and
that Faith is a receiving of the gift; but then it must be an
appropriating and applying faith. For no man is possessed of
a gift till he receives it; but, in receiving it, he obtains
a special interest in it, which he had not before._ That God,
by the word of the gospel, maketh known to all indefinitely
who hear it, that He is well pleased in His beloved Son, and
that He giveth His Son and remission of sins and eternal life
to all who unfeignedly believe the gospel with understanding,
is as surely true as God’s word is true. And, that no man is
possessed of a gift till he receives it, and that in receiving
it he obtains a special interest in it, is also true. It is
also granted that no man hath Christ, or a special interest
in Him, but he that receiveth Him. But, then, doth any man
receive Christ before he believeth the gospel? Coming to
Christ, receiving or embracing Him, looking to Him, trusting
or confiding in, relying or depending upon Him and His divine
righteousness, belong to faith, and always accompany it;
although they may be deemed immediate consequent effects of it”
(p. 142.)