“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.”