“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.”