REV. BENJAMIN INGHAM, THE YORKSHIRE EVANGELIST. (continued 2)

“Osset, February 20, 1740.

“My dear Brother,—The most dangerous time in the Christian race, seems to be when a person receives the forgiveness of sins, especially if he is filled with great joy, and of long continuance. Indeed, all states of great joy are dangerous, if not humbly received. If persons have not now a guide, or are not guidable, it is ten to one but they run into error and by-paths. Many souls miscarry here, and never get further in their spiritual progress. They run on till their joy and strength are spent, and then they lose themselves, and are all in confusion. I have met with several persons with whom it has been thus, and how to help them I know not. They do not get forward. I believe, indeed, that they will be saved, yet their degree in glory will be low. They are but in the first stage of the new birth.

“You ask, What are the marks of a person who is justified, and not sealed?[79]

“I cannot give you any certain, infallible marks; but a person to whom the Lord has given the gift of discerning will tell; and, without the gift, we shall never be able to know surely. However, such persons are meek, simple, and childlike; they have doubts and fears within; they are in a wilderness state. In this state, they are to be kept still and quiet; to search more deeply into their hearts, so that they become more and more poor in spirit, or humble. They are likewise now taught to depend wholly on Christ. By all means, keep them from confusion. If they come into confusion (as they are apt to do), they receive inconceivable damage; but, if they continue still meek and gentle, searching into their hearts, and depending upon Christ, they will find their hearts to be sweetly drawn after Christ; they will begin to loathe and abhor sin, and to hunger and thirst after righteousness; they will get strength daily; Christ will begin to manifest Himself by degrees; the darkness will vanish, and the day-star will arise in their hearts. Thus they go on from strength to strength, till they become strong, and then they will begin to see things clearly, and to understand what the Lord has done for them; so, by degrees, they will come to have the assurance of faith.

“You ask whether, in this intermediate state, they are ‘children of wrath, or heirs of the promises’?

“Without doubt, they are children of God; they are in a state of salvation. A child may be heir to an estate before it can speak, or know what an estate is; so we may be heirs of heaven before we know it, or are made sure of it. However, the assurance of faith is to be sought after. It may be attained; it will be given to all who go forward. We must first be humble and poor in spirit. We must be deeply so. We must have a constant, fixed, abiding feeling,—a sense of our weakness and unworthiness, corruption, sin, and misery. This it is to be a poor sinner.

“If I were with you, I would explain things more largely; but I am a novice,—I am but a beginner,—a babe in Christ. If you go amongst the Brethren, they are good guides; but yet, after all, we must be taught of God, and have experience in our own hearts; or else it will not do. May the Spirit of truth lead us into all truth!

“I am your poor, unworthy brother,

“B. Ingham.”

The above is given verbatim from the manuscript letter, and is of great importance as revealing the views, doubts, and difficulties of the leaders of the Methodist movement.

Before proceeding further, it may be added that Ingham was not forgotten by his old friend Whitefield, who wrote to him as follows:—

“Savannah, March 28, 1740.

“How glad I should be of a letter from dear brother Ingham. When shall my soul be refreshed, with hearing that the work of the Lord prospers in his hand? I suppose before now you have received my letters and seen my journal. I believe God is yet preparing great things for us. Many at Charles-Town lately were brought to see their want of Jesus Christ. The Orphan House goes on bravely. I have forty children to maintain, besides workmen and their assistants. The great Householder of the world does, and will, I am persuaded, richly provide for us all. The colony itself is in a very declining way; but our extremity is God’s opportunity. Our brethren, I trust, go forwards in the spiritual life. I have often great inward trials. I believe it to be God’s will that I should marry. One, who may be looked upon as a superior, is absolutely necessary for the due management of affairs. However, I pray God, that I may not have a wife, till I can live as though I had none. You may communicate this to some of our intimates; for I would call Christ and His disciples to the marriage. If I am deluded, pray that God would reveal it to your most affectionate brother and servant,

“George Whitefield.”

In the midst of all this, a new evangelist sprang up, who, without the educational advantages of the Oxford Methodists, had a kindred soul.

John Nelson, the brave-hearted Yorkshire stonemason, after hearing almost all sorts of religionists,—Church of England men, Dissenters, Papists, and Quakers,—had been brought to a knowledge of the truth by Wesley. This was under the first sermon preached by Wesley in Moorfields. In 1740, Nelson returned to Yorkshire, and related to his friends his happy experience. He writes:—

“They begged I would not tell any one that my sins were forgiven, for no one would believe me, and they should be ashamed to show their faces in the street. I answered, ‘I shall not be ashamed to tell what God has done for my soul, if I could speak loud enough for all the men in the world to hear me at once.’ My mother said, ‘Your head is turned.’ I replied, ‘Yes, and my heart too, I thank the Lord.’”

He went to Adwalton, to hear Ingham preach; and remarked:—

“As soon as I got into the house, he called me into the parlour, and desired the company that was with him to go out, for he had something to say to me. When they went, he rose up, barred the door, then sat down, and asked me, ‘Do you know your own heart, think you?’ I answered, ‘Not rightly; but I know Jesus Christ, and He knows and has taken possession of it; and though it be deceitful, yet He can subdue it to Himself; and I trust He will’. He said, ‘Have you not deceived yourself with thinking that your sins are forgiven, and that you are in a state of grace? I was three years seeking before I found Him.’ I replied, ‘Suppose you were, do you confine God to be three years in converting every soul, because you were so long? God is able to convert a soul in three days now, as He was to convert St. Paul seventeen hundred years ago.’ I then began to tell him what I had seen at London under Mr. Wesley’s preaching. He said he pitied poor Mr. Wesley, for he was ignorant of his own state; and he spoke as if he believed Mr. Wesley to be an unconverted man; at which words my corrupt nature began to stir. But it came to my mind, ‘The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God’; and I lifted up my heart to the Lord, and my mind was calmed in a moment. He said, ‘You ought not to tell people that they may know their sins forgiven, for the world cannot bear it; and if such a thing were preached, it would raise persecution.’ I replied, ‘Let them quake that fear. By the grace of God, I love every man, but fear no man; and I will tell all I can, that there is such a prize to run for. If I hide it, mischief will come upon me. There is a famine in the land; and I see myself in the case of the lepers that were at the gate of Samaria, who found provisions in the enemy’s camp; and, when they had eat and drank, and loaded themselves, said, “We do not well; for this is a day of glad tidings, let us go and make it known to the king’s household.” When I found God’s wrath removed, for the sake of His dear Son, I saw provision enough for my poor fainting soul, and for all the world if they would come for it. I believe it is a sin not to declare to the children of men what God has done for my soul, that they may seek for the same mercy.’ He told me, I had nothing to do with the Old Testament, or to make comparisons from anything in it. I answered, ‘I have as much to do with it as with the New Testament.’ He replied, ‘I would not have you speak any more to the people till you are better acquainted with your own heart.’ I told him, I would not in his societies, unless I was desired; but what I did in my own house, or any other person’s that requested me, he had no business with. I added, ‘I do not belong to you; and though I have heard you several times, it is no benefit to me; for I have experienced more of the grace of God than ever I heard you preach of it, or any one else since I left London.’”

Nelson here obviously refers to his enjoyment of the Holy Spirit’s witness to the fact that his sins were pardoned; and hence he continues,—

“Soon after Mr. Ingham came out and began to preach; when I was greatly surprised; for what he had forbidden me to do, he himself did directly; for he told the people, that night, they must know their sins forgiven in this world or go to hell.”[80]

Soon after this, Ingham went to London, where the Wesleys were in painful conflict with the Moravians. Philip Henry Molther, who had been the private tutor of Zinzendorf’s only son, was preaching, to large congregations, four times every week, and was much more popular than his talents or his misty doctrines merited. The chief controversy between him and Wesley was concerning the use of the means of grace. Molther recommended penitent inquirers to “be still;” that is, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate, not to do good; for it was impossible to use means, without trusting in them. Wesley, on the other hand, recommended and enforced just the opposite. The contention among their partisans was fierce and furious; and the object of Ingham’s visit to the metropolis seems to have been to reconcile the irritated disputants. Charles Wesley writes:—

“1740. May 22.—I found our dear brother Ingham at Mr. West’s. The holiday mob were very outrageous at the Foundery. God filled my mouth with threatenings and promises; and, at last, we got the victory, and the fiercest rioters were overawed into silence.

“May 25.—At the lovefeast, I was overwhelmed with the burden of our brethren, with such visible signs of dejection, that several, I was since informed, were in great hopes that I was now coming down in my pride, or unsettling, and coming into confusion. Indeed, my faith did well-nigh fail me; for in spite of the seeming reconciliation which brother Ingham forces them into, it is impossible we should ever be of one mind, unless they are convinced of their abrogating the law of Christian ordinances, and taking away the children’s bread.

“May 27.—I rejoiced to find no difference betwixt my brother Ingham and me. He has honestly withstood the deluded brethren; contradicted their favourite errors, and constrained them to be still. That blot he easily hit: ‘You say no man must speak of what he has not experienced; you, Oxley and Simpson, say that one in the Gospel-liberty can have no stirrings of sin.’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Are you in Gospel-liberty?’ ‘No.’ ‘Then out of your own mouth I judge you: you speak of things which you know not of.’

“June 2.—I preached up the ordinances, as they call it, from Isaiah lviii.; but first, with the prophet, I preached them down. Telchig” [Toltschig], “Ingham, etc., were present, which made me use greater plainness, that they might set me right, if I mistook.

“June 11.—I returned” [from the Delamotte family at Blendon] “to be exercised by our still brethren’s contradiction. My brother proposed new-modelling the bands, and setting by themselves those few who were still for the ordinances. Great clamour was raised by this proposal. The noisy still ones well knew that they had carried their point by wearying out the sincere ones scattered among them; so that a remnant is scarcely left. They grudged us even this remnant, which would soon be all their own, unless immediately rescued out of their hands. Benjamin Ingham seconded us, and obtained that the names should be called over, and as many as were aggrieved put into new books.

“We gathered up our wreck,—raros nantes in gurgite vasto; for nine out of ten are swallowed up in the dead sea of stillness. O, why was not this done six months ago? How fatal was our delay and moderation! ‘Let them alone, and they will soon be weary, and come to themselves of course,’ said one,—unus qui nobis cunctando restituet rem! I tremble at the consequence. Will they submit themselves to every ordinance of man, who refuse subjection to the ordinances of God? I told them plainly, I should only continue with them so long as they continued in the Church of England. My every word was grievous to them. I am a thorn in their sides, and they cannot bear me.

“They modestly denied that we had any but hearsay proof of their denying the ordinances. I asked them all and every one, particularly Bray, Bell, etc., whether they would now acknowledge them to be commands or duties; whether they sinned in omitting them; whether they did not leave it to every man’s fancy to use them or not; whether they did not exclude all from the Lord’s table, except those whom they called believers. These questions I put too close to be evaded; though better dodgers never came out of the school of Loyola. Honest Bell and some others spoke out, and insisted upon their antichristian liberty. The rest put by their stillness, and delivered me over to Satan for a blasphemer, a very Saul (for to him they compare me), out of blind zeal persecuting the Church of Christ.”[81]

Ingham continued among these angry people a week longer, when John Wesley wrote:—

“1740. June 18.—I went to our own society, of Fetter Lane, before whom Mr. Ingham (being to leave London on the morrow) bore a noble testimony for the ordinances of God, and the reality of weak faith.[82] But the short answer was, ‘You are blind, and speak of the things you know not.’”[83]

Matters now reached a crisis. For about two years, Wesley had been a sort of member and minister of the Moravian Society in Fetter Lane. Five weeks after this, by a vote of the Brethren, Wesley was expelled; and Molther, his rival, was left in full possession. Those who sympathised with Wesley were, in number, about twenty-five men and fifty women, all of whom seceded with him, and, on July 23rd, 1740, met, for the first time, at the Foundery, instead of at Fetter Lane; and thus the Methodist Society was founded.

Whitefield was in America; but, in the midst of these wretched squabbles, wrote to Ingham the following Calvinistic, and not too luminous epistle:—

“Boston, September 26th, 1740.

“My dear Brother Ingham,—I thank you for your kind letter. It is the first I have received from you since I left England. I bless God, that the work goes on in Yorkshire. May our glorious, sin-forgiving Lord, bless you and your spiritual children more and more!

“I find our friends are got into disputing one with another. O, that the God of peace may put a stop to it! I wish many may not be building on a false foundation, and resting in a false peace. They own free justification, and yet seem to think that their continuance in a justified state depends on their doings and their wills. This, I think, is establishing a righteousness of our own. My dear brother, if we search the Scriptures, we shall find that the word justified implies, not only pardon of sin, but also all its consequences. ‘Thus,’ says St. Paul, ‘those whom He justified, them He also glorified;’ so that, if a man was once justified, he remains so to all eternity. There lies the anchor of all my hopes,—our Lord having once loved me, He will love me to the end. This fills me with joy unspeakable and full of glory. I now walk by faith. I work not to keep myself in a justified state, (for men nor devils can pluck me out of Christ’s hands,) but to express my love and gratitude for what Jesus hath done for my soul. This, I think, is what the apostle calls, ‘faith working by love.’

“My dear brother, my heart’s desire and prayer to God is, that we may all think and speak the same things; for, if we are divided among ourselves, what an advantage will Satan get over us! Let us love one another, excite all to come to Christ without exception, and our Lord will show us who are His.

“With difficulty, I get time to write this, but I must answer dear brother Ingham’s letter. May the Lord Jesus be continually with your spirit, and make your soul brimful of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost! I love you in the bowels of the crucified Lamb. May He unite us more and more intimately to His dear self, and to one another! Salute all that love Him in sincerity. That you may be kept by God’s power to eternal salvation, is the prayer of your most affectionate, though unworthy brother and poor weak servant in Christ,

“George Whitefield.”

It is needless to say, that some of the doctrines in the above letter were not held by Wesley; but let that pass.

Ingham returned to Yorkshire with broader views and sympathies than he had when he left for London. Sending for John Nelson to one of his meetings, he said, “John, I believe God has called you to speak His word; for I have spoken with several since I came back from London, who, I believe, have received grace since I went; and I see God is working in a shorter manner than He did with us at the beginning; and I should be sorry to hinder any one from doing good.” Then, turning to the assembled brethren and sisters, Ingham continued, “Before you all, I give John leave to exhort in all my societies;” and, taking the rough hand of the Yorkshire stonemason, he added, “John, God hath given you great honour, in that He hath made use of you to call sinners to the blood of our Saviour; and I desire you to exhort in all my societies as often as you can.”

Thus, in the employment of lay preachers, Ingham co-operated with his friend Wesley. Both were clergymen of the Church of England; and both were willing to have lay helpers. Nelson’s preaching was attended with great success. “Nine or ten in a week were brought to experience the love of Jesus.”[84] John was no proselytizer. Those of his converts, who belonged to the Church of England, he “exhorted to keep close to the Church and sacrament;” and those who were “Dissenters, to keep to their own meetings, and to let their light shine before their own community.”

In this respect, he was somewhat in advance of his reverend patron; for Ingham advised just the contrary, and several acted on his advice, which, says Nelson, “made me very uneasy.” Nelson firmly adhered to the Church of England, and wished to avoid a schism. Ingham, on the other hand, had already virtually seceded, and was at the head of the Moravian sect in Yorkshire. The priest and the mason found it difficult to work in harmony. Besides, though always actuated by the best intentions, Ingham was somewhat fickle, and easily influenced by his Moravian helpers. Nelson was just the opposite; and, yet, his steadfastness was not stubbornness. He was firm, because he felt that the ground he occupied was right. As already stated, Ingham, on his return from London, publicly authorised, and even requested, Nelson to exhort in all his societies; but, shortly afterwards, the authorization was withdrawn. Why? Because Ingham was no longer the commander-in-chief of the Yorkshire converts, but a merely co-ordinate member of a common-council. He could no longer act as he liked; but must proceed in harmony with the decisions of those to whom he had allied himself. Here an explanation is necessary.

In 1740, Ingham wrote:—

“There are now upwards of fifty societies, where the people meet for edification; and of two thousand hearers of the gospel, I know, at least, three hundred on whose hearts the Spirit of God works powerfully; and one hundred who have found grace in the blood and the atonement of Jesus.”

The work begun by Ingham bid fair to exceed that in London. Hitherto the rendezvous of the English Moravian ministers had been the metropolis; now it became a farm-house in Yorkshire. About four miles east of Halifax stood a spacious dwelling, with extensive outbuildings, and a large farm attached. This the Moravians rented, that it might serve as a place of residence for those Moravian pastors to whom the spiritual affairs of the societies were committed, and as a common centre of union. They entered on the occupancy of the premises in 1741; and, shortly after, Ingham, who had hitherto had the chief care of the Yorkshire societies, urgently, and in writing, requested the Brethren to take the entire direction of them into their own hands, so that he might devote himself wholly to the work of preaching. To carry out his purpose, a public meeting was convened, on July 30, 1742, which was attended by about a thousand persons, belonging to these societies. Ingham’s proposal was submitted to them, and was heartily accepted. A document was drawn up, which, after referring to Ingham’s faithful labours, expressed a desire to be served in future by the ministers of the Brethren’s Church, “whom,” said the twelve hundred persons who signed it, “we not only desire to preach publicly amongst us, but also to visit us in private, put us to rights, and make such orders amongst us as they shall see useful and necessary, according to the grace the Lord shall give them.”

Smith House, near Halifax, was now the head-quarters of English Moravianism. Even members in London, elected to fulfil sacred functions there, were sent all the way to Yorkshire to be solemnly inducted into their respective offices. The field, hitherto occupied by Ingham, Nelson, and other co-operators, was divided into six principal districts, namely, Smith House, Adwalton, Mirfield, Great Horton, Holbeck, and Osset; and to each of these districts a Moravian minister was appointed.[85]

We now return to Ingham, and his neighbour Nelson. The latter tells us of a great Moravian meeting at Gomersal Field House, at which Ingham desired him to be present. Nelson went. The house was filled with five or six preachers, four exhorters, and about a hundred of the principal members of the Yorkshire societies. Not being able to gain admittance to the house, and finding a large number of people outside, the honest stonemason went into a field and preached. At length, Ingham came out, and announced the decision of the Brethren: namely, that it was not prudent to have so much preaching, for fear it should engender persecution. “I desire, therefore,” said he, “that none of the young men will expound till they are desired by the Brethren; we shall meet again this day month, and then we will let you know what we are all to do.” He next spoke to the young expounders, one by one, and said, “I hope you will be obedient.” They all replied, “Yes, sir.” He then turned to Nelson, saying, “John, I hope you will leave off till you have orders from the Church.” “No, sir,” replied intrepid John; “I will not leave off—I dare not; for I did not begin by the order of man, nor by my own will; therefore, I shall not leave off by your order; for, I tell you plainly, I should have left off without your bidding, but that I believed, if I did, I should be damned for disobedience.” Ingham answered, “You see these young men are obedient to the elders, and they have been blessed in their labours as well as you.” Nelson said, “I cannot tell how they have been blessed; but, I think, if God had sent them on His own errand, they would not stop at your bidding.” At this point, one of the preachers interfered, saying, “The spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets; therefore, they are right and you are wrong, for they are subject.” John failing to be convinced by the preacher’s logic, boldly answered, “You are not obedient to the prophets of God that were of old, for God saith by one of them, ‘I have set watchmen upon the walls of Jerusalem that shall not cease day or night;’ but you can hold your peace for a month together at man’s bidding.” Then turning to Ingham, Nelson continued, “You know that many have been converted by my exhorting lately, and a great many more are under convictions; what a sad thing would it be to leave them as they are.” Ingham’s lame reply was, “Our Saviour can convert souls without your preaching.” “Yes,” retorted John, “or yours either; and He can give corn without ploughing or sowing, but He does not, neither has He promised that He will.” Ingham rejoined, “Be still one month, and then you will know more of your own heart.” “With one proviso, I will,” said Nelson: “if you can persuade the devil to be still for a month; but if he goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, and God hath put a sword into my hand, I am determined to attack him wheresoever I meet him; and wheresoever I meet sin, I meet Satan.” Further conversation followed; and, at length, Ingham “charged all the people, as they loved him and the brethren, that they should not let Nelson preach in their houses, nor encourage him by hearing him elsewhere.”

This, on the part of Ingham, was painful and unworthy conduct. The preaching of the stonemason had probably been as greatly blessed and as successful as his own. The man was no irreligious, rash intruder; but a real evangelist, called and qualified by Him who, in all ages, has been wont to choose “the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; that no flesh should glory in His presence; and that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord.” Nelson was as divinely called to preach Christ’s glorious gospel as Ingham was. His ministry had the seals of divine approbation in the souls it had been the means of converting; and Ingham’s effort to suspend it, even for a month only, was a bold, bad act. Besides, the reason assigned for such an interference with a commission, which Nelson had received from God Himself, was a piece of cowardice unworthy of the man who had braved the storms of the Atlantic Ocean, and the hardships and miasmata of Georgia, solely for the purpose of being useful to the wild Indians and to a portion of England’s outcast population. For fear of persecution, Nelson, whom God had used in saving sinners, was to be gagged and silenced. The change which had come over the naturally brave spirit of the Oxford Methodist was a painful one; and also puzzling, except on the ground that he had changed his company.

It is a mournful duty to have to mention another incident. Ingham interdicted Nelson, though unsuccessfully. He further renounced his old friend Wesley, and, for a season at least, became intoxicated with the Moravian vanity, at that time disastrously spreading. Hence, the following extract from Nelson’s Journal:—

“I was desired once more to go to Gomersal Field House to speak to Mr. Ingham. When I got there, David Taylor was with him, and spoke kindly to me. When Mr. Taylor was gone, Mr. Ingham began to talk to me about making division among the Brethren. I told him, I did not want to make division; I wanted the people to be saved. He said, ‘We cannot receive you or Mr. Wesley into our community[86] till he publicly declares he has printed false doctrine, and you declare you have preached false.’ I said, ‘Wherein?’ He then burst out into laughter, and said, ‘In telling the people they may live without committing sin.’[87] I replied, ‘Do you call that false doctrine?’ He answered, ‘I do, I do; and Mr. Wesley has written false doctrine, teaching the same errors.’ He quoted some words; then I said, ‘They are not Mr. Wesley’s, but St John’s words; it is St. John who says, “Let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, and he that committeth sin is of the devil.” So, if St. John be right, every one who preacheth contrary to what Mr. Wesley has written here, and what I have preached, is a deceiver and betrayer of souls.’ ‘If that be your opinion,’ said Mr. Ingham, ‘we cannot receive you into our Church.’ I replied, ‘I don’t want to be one of you, for I am a member of the Church of England.’ He answered, ‘The Church of England is no Church; we are the Church.’ I said, ‘We! Whom do you mean?’ He replied, ‘I and the Moravian Brethren.’ I said, ‘I have no desire to have any fellowship with you or them; it has been better for my soul since I have been wholly separated from you, and God has blessed my labours more since I was told, they had delivered me up to Satan, than ever before; therefore, I think it better to have their curse than to have communion with them.’ He replied, ’ If you think so, I have no more to say to you;’ and then, he turned his back on me.”

Thus did Ingham fully and finally sever himself from the Methodists. Nelson continued preaching; souls were saved; and, in 1742, Wesley, for the first time, visited the Birstal stonemason. After giving an account how Nelson was led to begin to preach, and of his success, Wesley adds:—

“Mr. Ingham hearing of this, came to Birstal, inquired into the facts, talked with John himself, and examined him in the closest manner, both touching his knowledge and spiritual experience; after which he encouraged him to proceed; and pressed him, as often as he had opportunity, to come to any of the places where himself had been, and speak to the people as God should enable him. But he soon gave offence, both by his plainness of speech, and by advising the people to go to church and sacrament. Mr. Ingham reproved him: and, finding him incorrigible, forbad any that were in his societies to hear him. But, being persuaded this is the will of God concerning him, he continues to this hour working in the day, that he may be burdensome to no man; and, in the evening, ‘testifying the truth as it is in Jesus.’”[88]

This is a long account; but not without interest; inasmuch as it furnishes a glimpse of the way in which Ingham parted with the Methodists, and of the beginnings of both Moravianism and Methodism in the north of England. We only add, that, though Ingham passed through Birstal during Wesley’s visit, there was no interview between them.[89] Thus was an old and close friendship severed.

It has been already stated, that, the differences between Ingham and Nelson probably occurred in 1741; and that Wesley’s visit to Birstal took place in 1742. This, in some respects, was the most important period in Ingham’s life.

Far away from the miserable strifes of the Moravians in London, we find him, in 1740, an humble, happy, loving, useful Christian. The following letter is simple and beautiful:—

“Osset, September 20, 1740.

“My Dear Brother,—I have not heard anything of you this long time. As to myself, I am exceeding happy.[90] The Lord Jesus, my dear Redeemer, is abundantly gracious and bountiful towards me. I have, and do daily taste of His goodness. I am ashamed before Him; I am so very unworthy, and He is so very kind and merciful. My heart melts within me, at the thoughts of Him. He is all love. I am a sinful, helpless worm.

“In Yorkshire, the Lord still keeps carrying on His work. Many souls are truly awakened: some have obtained mercy. The enemies are engaged against us; but the Lord is our helper. We have great peace, and love, and unity amongst ourselves. We have no differences, no divisions, no disputings. May He, who is the giver of every good and perfect gift, grant us always to be like-minded; and may we and our friends grow in grace, and increase in love towards one another, that, by this mark, all men may know that we belong to Christ!

“I remain your affectionate, though unworthy brother,

“B. Ingham.”[91]

If Ingham and John Nelson had been left to themselves, Ingham’s prayer for continued unity might have been answered; but Ingham wished for Toltschig, one of the ministerial chiefs among the London Moravians; and Toltschig doubtless went.

“We, in London,” writes James Hutton, “cannot spare Toltschig until Spangenberg comes to us. We here all think he will be useful to Ingham and the souls there. They must seize the opportunity presented. The souls in Yorkshire are more simple-hearted than those in London, where they are more knowing; and they do not, like those in town, quibble at every word. Toltschig is known in Yorkshire, where the souls love him, and he can speak to them with confidence. We want a thorough brother, fundamentally correct, and of large experience, for the souls in London, able to attend our bands and conferences, and to address our meetings. Toltschig is very well in bands and conferences, but he cannot preach.”[92]

Did Toltschig carry the cantankerous contagion of the London Moravians with him? We cannot tell; but there can be no question, that, the “simple-hearted” Yorkshire brethren caught it; and, that, in Yorkshire, as in London, a schism among the Moravians led to the formation of the society of Methodists.

Indeed, it is a curious fact, that, for a season, the spirit of discord, among nearly the whole of the new religionists, seemed rampant. No man ever lived who sighed for peace more ardently than Whitefield. His large and loving heart had room enough for every man. The language of the Psalmist’s pen was pre-eminently the language of Whitefield’s life: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions’ sake, I will now say, Peace be within thee.” And, yet, at this very time, as if to make bad things worse, the quarrel, between the London Moravians and Methodists, was followed by the quarrel between Wesley and Whitefield, respecting Wesley’s sermon on “Free Grace;” and, to complete the whole, and to make the confusion more confounded, the Yorkshire converts, so far away from the strifeful scene, began disputing; and the frank, warm-hearted Ingham began to regard his old friend Wesley with a suspicious eye, and presumptuously tried to annul John Nelson’s divine commission to act as an evangelist among his neighbours!

Ingham’s objection to Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification has been already mentioned; but, besides this, there were other points of difference. Wesley writes:—

“1741. August 1.—I had a long conversation with Mr. Ingham. We both agreed,—1. That none shall finally be saved, who have not, as they had opportunity, done all good works; and, 2. That if a justified person does not do good, as he has opportunity, he will lose the grace he has received; and, if he ‘repent’ not, ‘and do the former works,’ will perish eternally. But with regard to the unjustified (if I understand him), we wholly disagreed. He believed, it is not the will of God, that, we should wait for faith in doing good. I believe, this is the will of God; and that, they will never find Him, unless they seek Him in this way.”

Again:—

“1742, August 3.—I preached at Mirfield, where I found Mr. Ingham had been an hour before. Great part of the day, I spent in speaking with those who have tasted the powers of the world to come; by whose concurrent testimony I find, that, Mr. Ingham’s method to this day is,—1. To endeavour to persuade them, that they are in a delusion, and have indeed no faith at all: if this cannot be done, then, 2. To make them keep it to themselves; and, 3. To prevent them going to the church or sacrament; at least to guard them from having any reverence, or expecting to find any blessing in those ordinances of God. In the evening, I preached at Adwalton, a mile from Birstal. After preaching, and the next day, I spoke with more, who had, or sought for, redemption through Christ; all of whom I perceived had been advised also, to put their light under a bushel; or to forsake the ordinances of God, in order to find Christ.”[93]

Ingham’s wish to prevent persecution has been noticed. On this ground, he requested Nelson and other exhorters to desist from preaching for a month. What led to this? Perhaps, the publication, in 1740, of a furious pamphlet of eighty-four pages, with the following title: “The Imposture of Methodism displayed; in a Letter to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Dewsbury and Occasioned by the Rise of a certain Modern Sect of Enthusiasts, (among them,) called Methodists. By William Bowman, M.A., Vicar of Dewsbury and Aldborough in Yorkshire, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Charles Earl of Hoptoun.”

This pastorly letter was avowedly written against the Methodists; but the reverend author, like many others at the time, employed an inappropriate word; for, at that period, there were no Methodists at all, either in Yorkshire or any other part of the north of England. His letter is dated, “Aldbrough, August 15, 1740”; whereas, John Nelson, the beginner of northern Methodism, did not commence preaching to his neighbours for several months after this.[94] The Vicar of Dewsbury meant Moravians; but, for reasons of his own, he preferred to use the word Methodists.

Terrible was the anger which Ingham and his coadjutors had excited in the Christian breast of their reverend neighbour. The pamphlet is a rarity, and, perhaps, a condensed account of it may be welcome.

It is a curious fact, that, the writer, while professing so much interest in the spiritual welfare of his flock, acknowledges, that, “for the greatest part of his time,” he is “absent and remote from them.” He is, however, notwithstanding this, greatly distressed on account of “the impious spirit of enthusiasm and superstition, which has of late crept in among” them, “and which sadly threatens a total ruin and destruction of all religion and virtue.” Indeed, he had himself been, “in some measure, an eye-witness of this monstrous madness, and religious frenzy, which introduced nothing but a confused and ridiculous medley of nonsense and inconsistency.” It was true, that, “at present, the contagion was pretty much confined to the dregs and refuse of the people,—the weak, unsteady mob;” but, then, the mob was so numerous in the west of Yorkshire, that, the danger was greater than was apprehended. He next proceeds to review “some of the chief doctrines” of “these modern visionaries,” which he will not now 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—

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:—

“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]