“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.”