“1741, July 2. I met Mr. Gambold again, who honestly told me he
was ashamed of my company, and, therefore, must be excused from
going to the society with me. This is plain dealing at last.”
Such was another of the disastrous results of Molther’s visit to the
London Moravians: Wesley and Gambold, bound together by hundreds of
endearing facts, were parted; and, though not converted into foes, were
no longer friends.
It is a melancholy fact, that this estrangement was not temporary. Twelve
months before, the friendship between Whitefield and Wesley had been
ruptured; but, in 1742, there was a sincere and hearty reunion, which
lasted until death. In the case of Gambold, it was otherwise, but through
no fault of Wesley’s. On December 23, 1745, Charles Wesley wrote as
follows:—
“I met my old friend, John Gambold, at my printer’s, and
appointed to meet him to-morrow at Dr. Newton’s. I brought
my brother with me. I found the Germans had quite estranged
and stole away his heart, which nevertheless relented, while
we talked over the passages of our former friendship; but he
hardened himself against the weakness of gratitude. We could
not prevail upon him to meet us again.”
Yea, more than this. Eighteen years afterwards, Wesley himself made the
following entries in his journal:—
“1763, November 5. I spent some time with my old friend, John.
Gambold. Who but Count Zinzendorf could have separated such
friends as we were? Shall we never unite again?
“December 16. I spent an agreeable hour, and not unprofitably,
with my old friend, John Gambold. O how gladly could I join
heart and hand again! But, alas! thy heart is not as my heart!”
Gambold would not resume the friendship; but, to the very last, Wesley
held him in high esteem. Only twelve months before Gambold’s death, he
spoke of him as being one of the most “sensible men in England.”[128] But
to return to Oxford, where the breach first occurred.
Wesley’s sermon, before the University, was preached and published; and
it is a curious fact, that, of all the sermons Gambold ever preached,
only two have appeared in print, and, that, one of the two was delivered
in the same year, in the same church, and before the same audience,
as this of Wesley’s was. Gambold’s sermon was founded upon the text,
“And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for behold I bring you good
tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people;” and was entitled:
“Christianity Tidings of Joy. A Sermon preached before the University of
Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, December 27, 1741. Published at the
request of Mr. Vice-Chancellor.”
The two sermons were widely different. Wesley’s was intensely practical
and faithful; an earnest and comprehensive enforcement of experimental
and practical religion, with a direct, searching, personal application,
which, under the circumstances, was much more likely to be censured than
applauded. Gambold’s was much more than twice the length of Wesley’s;
but not half so simple and useful. Wesley’s was full of the Methodist
doctrine of the day; Gambold’s was a metaphysical disquisition, which
might, with consistency, have been uttered by any of the Oxford divines
opposed to the Methodist movement. It would not be true to say, that,
his remarks were not pertinent; but they were not what such an audience
might have expected from a newly converted Methodist. How to account for
this we know not. His sermon is long, learned, and able; but it fails to
reach the heart and conscience as Wesley’s does. Besides, there is one
sentence in it which, as coming from such a man, is perfectly perplexing.
He expressly asserts that “a man’s sins are forgiven in baptism;” and
that baptism, “the channel of remission, is qualification enough for
heaven, to those who die upon it.” To reconcile the discrepancy between
this and Gambold’s own statements as already quoted, is difficult, if
not impossible. The fact seems to be, that, though he had embraced the
doctrine of salvation by faith only, he was still infected with some of
the High Church principles of the Oxford Methodists; and his evangelical
and able ministry was marred and made misty by the philosophical
speculations and reasonings in which he had so long indulged. That he was
a trustful and saved believer in Jesus Christ, there cannot be a doubt;
but he failed to announce the great doctrines, which he had been taught
by Böhler, with the simplicity, clearness, earnestness, and pathos that
Wesley did. Wesley’s heart was full of them; and, in all his wanderings,
they were almost the only theme of his daily ministry. Gambold held, and
also preached them; but, perhaps, from his metaphysical cast of mind,
they were not so clearly and forcibly presented as by his quondam friend.
Nine months after the delivery of his sermon before the University,
Gambold formally severed himself from the Established Church, and united
with the Moravians. He was the fifth of the Oxford Methodists who had
joined the Brethren. Of these, the two Wesleys had seceded,—or, it might
almost be said,—had been virtually expelled. The third, Benjamin Ingham,
in this very year, 1742, transferred to the Moravians more than fifty
societies, which he had been the instrument of raising in two of the
northern counties. Westley Hall, the fourth, need not here be further
mentioned. Gambold, the fifth, was the only one who died in the Moravian
communion. The step he took was well-considered. He might seem odd; but
he was unquestionably sincere. The Moravians in England were only of a
few years’ standing, and had many faults; but there was one thing in
existence among them, and practised by them, after which Gambold, newly
converted, longed with the utmost earnestness,—Christian fellowship.
Of this, there was none at Stanton-Harcourt; and it was only now, in
1742, that his old friend Wesley thoroughly succeeded in making such a
provision for the Methodists, by dividing their Societies into Classes.
This was the thing for which Gambold pined. It could be enjoyed nowhere
except among either Wesley’s people or the Moravians. Gambold and Wesley
were no longer friends; and, hence, the union of Gambold with the
Brethren. With this view, he applied to them for admission, committing
himself to their direction, and having no choice with regard to any
station or office to be held by him in the future. In the beginning of
October, 1742, he simply writes:—
“Having had assurance that such a favour might be granted, I
left my parish with a view to live wholly with the Brethren.”
Of course he had previously communicated his intention to the Bishop of
Oxford, and also to his patron, Lord Harcourt; and both had strongly
urged him to change his purpose: but his resolution was fixed. In due
form he resigned his living, and issued an address to his parishioners,
of which the following is the substance:—
“It is not in consequence of any resentment, or of any worldly
motive that I give up my parish. I have not so implicitly
given up my judgment to others as to be prevailed upon, by
their persuasion, to take this step. The reason for my so
doing is well grounded, and to my own satisfaction. It does
not, I assure you, proceed from any dislike that I have to the
worship of God in the Church of England. I find no fault with
any passage or clause in the Common Prayer Book. Nor can I,
in justice, be considered in the same light with such persons
as slight and forsake one party of Christians and go over to
another without sufficient cause. But that which has determined
the choice I have made, was the earnest desire I found in
myself of that improvement in the knowledge of the Gospel,
and in the experience of the grace of Jesus Christ, which I
stood in need of. The blessings purchased by the blood of the
Shepherd of our souls, I longed to enjoy in fellowship with a
little flock of His sheep, who daily feed on the merits of His
passion, and whose great concern is to build up one another in
their most holy faith, and to propagate the truth, as it is
in Jesus, for the good of others. His gracious presence, the
power of His Word, and the virtue of His blood, I wanted to
have a more lively sense of, for my own comfort and support
in the Christian warfare; and I had reason to hope for those
means of happiness, especially where brethren dwell together in
unity, for there the Lord commandeth His blessing and life for
evermore. This is all I aim at in withdrawing myself from you;
and may this departure give no offence to any one.
“I now take my last adieu, and earnestly pray for you and for
myself. For myself, that I may be faithful to the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and prove His servant, truly devoted to
Him, where I am going; and may you, where you remain, be as
obedient to the influence of His Spirit and the dictates of His
word as I wish to be; so shall we one day rejoice before the
Great Shepherd of our souls, that merciful and compassionate
Saviour, in whom there is, in the meantime, life, peace, and
joy for all believers. I do not go from you because I cannot
live in the Church of England, as an outward profession, or
because I prefer any other form of ecclesiastical government
before that which is by law established in this kingdom; but
the inducement which leads me to this change, is the great
concern I have for the attainment of a happy state of mind;
and, to compass this end, no means, through the blessing of
God, appear to me so proper as a free intercourse with those
who are of the same principles with my own, to whom I may
communicate without reserve; and from whom I can receive that
assistance of advice and comfort, which is necessary for a
person encompassed with such infirmities as I am. I heartily
wish you may derive more benefit from the instructions of my
successor, than you have, or could have done, from mine; and I
trust this will be the case.”
Nothing need be added to this, except the remark that, in these days,
when the utility and necessity of meetings for religious fellowship are
so boldly called in question, an argument in their favour may be taken
from the yearning experience of this Oxford Methodist.
Gambold spent twenty-nine years in close and active connection with
the Moravians; but his life, compared with the career of Wesley and of
Whitefield, was uneventful.
At the time of his admission, “the congregation of the Lamb, with its
officers and servants as settled in London,” consisted of twenty-one
married men, thirteen married women, three widowers, five widows, sixteen
single men, and fourteen single women, a total of seventy-two persons.
This was a small affair. The Moravians had the start of Wesley’s society
in London; and yet that Society, in February, 1743, numbered not fewer
than 1950 members.[129] It is also a curious fact, that, nearly one half
of the Moravian Society were office-bearers; that is, “Congregation
Elders, Vice Elders, Eldresses, Waiters, Choristers, Admonitors, Censors,
Servants, and Sick Waiters.” Excepting Gambold and James Hutton, none
seem to have had the advantages of education; and, probably, all the men
were tradesmen, journeymen, or mechanics.[130] This was the society
Gambold joined, for the sake of Christian fellowship.
His stay in London was not long. On the 14th of May, 1743, he married,
and, for eighteen months afterwards, abode in Wales, chiefly at
Haverfordwest, where he kept a school, and preached occasionally.
Gambold returned to London in November, 1744; and here, with trifling
exceptions, he seems to have resided until his death, in 1771. Here,
at Fetter Lane, he preached with power, eloquence, and sacred unction;
and numbers were benefited by his ministry. His views of baptism, and
his mode of administering it, may be gathered from a paragraph in the
“Memoirs of James Hutton,” where, under date of September 13, 1745, it is
said,—
“Gambold baptized Brother Fell’s little boy. He spoke on
baptism, and said, ‘it was a delivering a child over into the
death of our Saviour.’ After prayer, he took the child into
his arms, and, taking water three times, he baptized him in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
then, singing some verses, he carried the child round to the
labourers who were present, who blessed him by laying on of
hands.”
As already stated, the Moravian Society in London was small; but
its meetings were numerous. From a list of the “public and private
opportunities of the Brethren at London, throughout the whole week,” in
February, 1747, we learn that they had four sermons every Sunday, two
in English and two in German; also German preaching every Tuesday, and
English every Tuesday and Thursday. Besides these services, however,
there were twenty-two others on Sunday, six on Monday, five on Tuesday,
thirteen on Wednesday, nine on Thursday, five on Friday, and five on
Saturday, making seventy-two religious services every week, exclusive
of monthly general meetings, prayer days, children’s prayer days, and
sacraments. To what extent Gambold took part in these Moravian meetings,
it is impossible to say; but, numerically considered, there was, beyond a
doubt, sufficient scope to gratify his longings for religious fellowship.
In 1747, Gambold, accompanied by Ingham, Okeley, Hutton, and Cennick,
paid a visit to Hernhaag, where he continued for several months, and
gained the respect and love of all who knew him. His visit was at an
important crisis in the Brethren’s history; and, probably, was occasioned
by the disastrous fanaticism which had broken out in that important
settlement. In 1738, a building was begun at Hernhaag, designed to serve
as an asylum for persons educated in the German Calvinistic Church,
and persecuted on account of their connection with the Brethren. In
1740, a congregation was regularly organized; and, in a few years,
Hernhaag contained a greater number of inhabitants than Herrnhut. Here
boarding-schools were established for the education of the children of
the Moravian ministers, whether employed in the service of the church
at home or in foreign lands; and the place altogether was one of great
importance. In 1746, however, there was the utmost danger of this
Christian settlement being ruined. Here began an evil, which soon became
widespread, and which required vigorous and long-continued efforts to
annihilate. The following is extracted from Holmes’ “History of the
Protestant Church of the United Brethren” (Vol. i., p. 399).
“In their zeal to root out self-righteousness, the Brethren
were not sufficiently on their guard against levity of
expression. The delight they took in speaking of the sufferings
of Christ, which arose from the penetrating sense they had of
their infinite value, by degrees degenerated into fanciful
representations of the various scenes of His passion. Their
style, in speaking and writing, lost its former plainness
and simplicity, and became turgid, puerile, and fanatical,
abounding in playful allusions to Christ as the Lamb, the
Bridegroom, etc., by which He is described in holy writ,
and in fanciful representations of the wound in His side.
In describing the spiritual relation between Christ and His
Church, the highly figurative language of the Canticles was
substituted in the place of the dignified simplicity, used by
our Saviour and His apostles, when speaking on this subject.
Some less-experienced preachers even seemed to vie with
each other in introducing, into their discourses, the most
extravagant, and often wholly unintelligible, expressions.
This kept the hearers in a state of constant excitement, but
was not calculated to subject every thought of the heart to
the obedience of Christ. Religion, instead of enlightening the
understanding, governing the affections, and regulating the
general conduct, became a play of the imagination.
“This species of fanaticism first broke out at Herrnhaag, in
the year 1746, and, from thence, spread into several other
congregations. Many were carried away by it, for it seemed to
promise a certain joyous perfection, representing believers as
innocent, playful children, who might be quite at their ease
amidst all the trials and difficulties incident to the present
life. The effect produced was such as might be expected. The
more serious members of the church (and these after all formed
the major part) bitterly lamented an evil, which they could not
at once eradicate. Others, considering the malady as incurable,
withdrew from its communion. The behaviour of such as were most
infected with this error, though not immoral and criminal,
was yet highly disgraceful to their Christian profession. Had
not God in mercy averted the impending danger, a spirit of
religious levity and antinomianism might, by degrees, have
sapped the very foundation of the Brethren’s Church, and
completed her ruin.”
What part Gambold took in this affair at Herrnhaag, and with what
results, we have no means of knowing; but certain it is, that, this
pestiferous lusciousness spread to England, and, for many a long year
afterwards, disgraced the Moravian hymns, and justly exposed the
Moravians themselves to the censures and taunts of both friends and
foes. It would be easy to quote instances illustrative of this, from
the English Moravian Hymn Book, “published chiefly for the Use of the
Congregations in Union with the Brethren’s Church,” in 1754; but the
reader would not be edified by such quotations.
The Moravians in England, when compared with the Methodists, could hardly
be considered a prosperous community. From the first, a considerable
number of their members belonged to other churches; and, in 1749,
an effort was made to multiply such extra-ecclesiastical adherents,
by instituting what was called an English Tropus, the object being
to provide a means whereby the members of other communities, and,
notably, of the Church of England, might be enrolled in the Moravian
Brotherhood, without severing themselves from the churches of which
they already formed a part. This was one of the subjects discussed at a
synod held in London in the above-mentioned year; and, to facilitate the
matter, Gambold addressed the following letter “To Papa, _i.e._ Count
Zinzendorf,” the beginning of which, to mention nothing else, shows how
far even Gambold had fallen into the offensive use of the adulatory
language of Moravian sycophants.
“MOST DEAR AND PATERNAL HEART.—A certain reflection has
this day arisen in my mind, which, such as it is, I wish to
communicate to you. I perceive that you and your faithful
colleagues are earnestly labouring to bring it about, that,
those, who flee from the fold of the Anglican religion, may
not be completely cut off from the said religion; but still
continue in ecclesiastical bond with it; and, therefore, you
propose to constitute an Anglican tropus among the Brethren,—an
object most dear to us, and with the greatest propriety
recommended; inasmuch as it is beginning, as I imagine, to be
thought desirable by the clergy of this country also. I greatly
fear, however, that there are, in their hierarchy, certain
deficiencies which may occasion some obstruction to the consent
of the majority; moreover, other considerations may oppose the
arrangement, that one prelate (the others being unconsulted,
except, perhaps, synodically), should be able to concede this
privilege.
“Two special means, or symbols of union, are contained, as I
understand, under the word Tropus. ONE REQUISITE is, that some
prelate of the Anglican Church should be invested with the
office of examining into such matters as the Brethren agitate,
and, on the part of his Church, and with the seal of the same,
assisting at their ordinations. The _other requisite_ is,
that the Liturgy, or Prayers of the Anglican Church should be
admitted in our assembly. The _former_ involves the appointment
of prudent political men; the _latter_ provides for the
security of religious, pious persons sustaining any injury
from us; tending, moreover, to the abatement of disaffection
as respects both communities, and to their mutual benefit and
salvation. I, therefore, earnestly desire the accomplishment of
the design.
“What evil, in the mean time, could ensue if the whole Book
of Prayers of the Anglican Church should occasionally be used
in public; not at this time as prayers, but as text; and an
explanation occasionally given as to the passages which, with
us, may seem to require some explanation? Certain exceedingly
grand portions of sacred Scripture which are intermingled
with these may, in this service, be omitted as being beyond
all dispute; and so, in six or eight prelections, or short
discourses, the whole may be finished. The service may, with
propriety, be preceded by some such introduction as the
following:
“Inasmuch as we and some other nurslings of the Anglican
Church, who have embraced the spiritual aid of the Moravian
Brethren, yet certainly with no design, by so doing, of
departing from our own proper religion; being, however, in
such situation, it manifestly follows that we constitute an
assembly which is extraordinary and extra-parochial, being
_ecclesiastically_ made up out of various parishes; and that
we, moreover, have a sacred place of meeting, which certainly
is not a parish church; consequently many will immediately
conclude that we are now of a different mind, and that we have
altogether forsaken the Anglican Church. Such, however, would
be an erroneous opinion. That we constitute such a society
or assembly as we have mentioned, arises from our desire to
exercise that salutary and vigorous discipline which the
Anglican Church pants for; but, by reason of its exceeding
magnitude, cannot maintain; that we have a place in which we
assemble, and a pulpit, arises from our delight in hearing
the principal doctrine respecting the death and grace of our
Redeemer more clearly and more fully enunciated there than
can in these times be expected elsewhere, notwithstanding the
same doctrine is maintained in the primary article of the
Anglican Church. There is, therefore, no reason why we should
be offended with the Church of our fatherland; and let it not
so tenaciously disallow to us those superadded aids for our
benefit and edification which we now enjoy, and nothing will
be more agreeable to us than (provided these be preserved with
a good conscience) henceforward still to preserve with it
the bond of unity. For we are able to do so both openly and
sincerely. In testimony of this, we are prepared to adopt in
our assemblies the Liturgy or Common Prayers of the Anglican
Church. But, because, as we are informed, the use of the
Anglican Liturgy, beyond the ordinary churches, will either be
unlawful, or, at least, exceedingly offensive; and as a kind of
secret disaffection, rather than amity, might arise therefrom
with those whom, from the most sincere respect, we would not
injure even in the least, we must therefore defer the adoption
of this Liturgy, in our _proseucha_ or house of prayer, until
full liberty of using it be granted to us by those who have the
authority. In the meantime, however, in order to its being made
manifest that what we have asserted is true, that union with
the Church of our fatherland is possible, since no violence
is thereby done to our conscience (providing there be left to
us discipline and evangelization, neither one nor the other
of which being opposed to the Anglican Church; nay, perhaps,
more closely allied to it than some imagine),—let us proceed to
examine in due order the whole liturgy of the Anglican Church.
As to what others, who, diverging into sects, have departed
from the Anglican fold, may have to object to this Liturgy I
shall take no notice, for they and we are neither affected nor
aggrieved by the same things. But, throughout this examination
I shall make it my special care to omit nothing which can, in
accordance with our light and principles, or indeed ever can,
occasion any obstacle to any one of us. To such passages I
shall assign that sense and exposition which I judge to have
been, and to be, the true meaning; and, unless I am deceived,
such will be found neither grievous nor unreasonable to the
mind which is imbued with the dearer knowledge and love of the
Saviour.’
“I have run out further than is suitable for an introduction;
but, as if carefully reviewing the whole matter in question,
I have been imagining what effect would result from the
procedure: the same that you also desire through the means of a
_Tropus_, only more feebly and less constant. But why, in any
degree, less constant? Because it is sufficiently constant,
considering the novelty of the measure. Such a declaration
would sink into the memory, and would be preserved by all as a
memorial of the true mind and will of the Brethren.
“Your most respectful son, and desiring to be excused, though
some should prate beyond their measure,
“JOHN GAMBOLD”.[131]
This long and tiresome letter is not without its use. For eight years,
Gambold had been a Moravian; he was in the vigour of his manhood; but
his mode of thinking and style of writing were not improved; nay, had
become as murky as the religious clouds in which he lived. Besides, he
was only eleven years the junior of Zinzendorf, and was naturally and
scholastically his equal, if not his superior; and, yet, contaminated
by the sycophancy of his associates, Gambold, the Oxford student, the
learned mystic, the dramatic poet, condescends to use the offensive
twaddle then so common, and must needs address the ambitious foreigner as
“Papa,” and “Most dear and paternal Heart.” Think of Wesley, or even of
Ingham, employing such epithets as these! The manliness of the man was
being dwarfed by the fooleries of his friends.
But, apart from this, Gambold’s letter is a curious production, and not
without interest at the present day, as containing a scheme for a kind of
amalgamation of some of the Moravians with the Established Church. The
Moravians differed from the Methodists; for Zinzendorf, at the very Synod
held immediately after the date of Gambold’s letter, formally announced
that the English Moravians were “now openly in the eye of the world
acknowledged to be a Church;” whereas Wesley, to the day of his death,
denied this distinction to the Methodists, affirming, in the strongest
terms, that the Methodists were not a Church, but only _Societies within_
a Church. Thus, the position of the two communities was different. To
be consistent, the Methodists might have claimed, and, indeed, ought to
have claimed, membership with some existing Church, beyond the circle
of the Society enclosure; but, according to Zinzendorf and the London
Synod of 1749, the Moravians were themselves a Church; and, hence, for
any Moravian, like Gambold, to profess himself a member of the Anglican
Church, was, in point of fact, to claim to be a member of two Churches
instead of one. This was a grave inconsistency; but, in accordance with
Gambold’s suggestions, an attempt was made to carry it into effect.
The proposed Synod met in London, in September, 1749; and “the Most
Reverend Thomas Wilson, Bishop of Sodor and Man,” already in the
eighty-sixth year of his age, with great formality, and with a pomp of
language almost startling, was “chosen into the order and number of the
Anetecessors of the General Synod of the Brethren of the Anatolic Unity.”
It was also decreed further, “that, the aforesaid Most Reverend Prelate
ought to be offered the administration of the Reformed tropus in our
hierarchy for life, with full liberty, in case of _emergency_, to employ,
as his substitute, the Rev. Thomas Wilson, Royal Almoner, Doctor of
Theology, and Prebendary of St. Peter’s, Westminster.”
The good old Bishop, with joy and thankfulness, accepted the office
to which the Moravians had elected him;[132] and, thus, Gambold and
Zinzendorf succeeded in securing the patronage of an English Prelate.
Practically, the arrangement was of little use, perhaps of none at all.
Five years afterwards, the venerable and pious Bishop was gathered to his
fathers, at the age of ninety-one.
Moravianism and its illustrious “Papa” had now arrived at the zenith
of their offensive ambition. It would be useless, and also far from
pleasant, to disinter the history of the Moravian Brotherhood at this
important crisis. A few of the facts have been mentioned in Ingham’s
Memoir; and nothing more need now be added, except, that, while
Zinzendorf was almost idolatrously honoured by the Moravians themselves,
he was the subject of severe but just attacks outside the pale of his own
community. Prudently, though perhaps somewhat arrogantly, he generally
declined to defend himself, partly on the ground that royalty always
acted thus; but he found it desirable to do something else which was
almost tantamount to this. In this same year, 1749, he published, in his
own private printing-office, a folio volume of 184 pages, entitled, “Acta
Fratrum Unitatis in Angliâ, 1749;” the whole of which, with the exception
of the sixth section of the second part, was translated or edited by
Gambold. The first part of this curious work consists entirely of Acts
of Parliament and Reports of Parliamentary Committees in reference to
the Brethren, together with original documents adduced as proofs of
the propositions which had been made. The second part embraces:—1. A
paraphrase of the twenty-one Articles of the Confession of Augsburg; 2.
The Brethren’s method of preaching the Gospel according to the Synod of
Berne; 3. The Moravian Litany; 4. Extracts from the Minutes of Moravian
Synods; 5. Zinzendorf’s _Rationale_ of the Brethren’s Liturgies; 6.
Original passages from the writings of the early fathers of the Church,
and of theologians of the middle ages.
This was not the only service which Gambold rendered to Zinzendorf and
the Moravians. On June 4, 1750, he sent to Spangenberg a long letter,
which was afterwards published in a pamphlet, with the title, “An Essay
towards giving some just ideas of the personal character of Count
Zinzendorf, the present Advocate and Ordinary of the Brethren’s Church:
In several Letters wrote by Eye-Witnesses. Published by James Hutton,
late of Westminster, and now of Chelsea. London, 1755.” 8vo. Gambold’s
letter is too long for insertion here; but throughout it is a vindication
of the Count,—the best doubtless that Gambold could supply,—and a few
extracts may be useful:—
“There are a great number of thinking persons, who, if the
bear-skin could be taken off from the Brethren, would directly
be well satisfied with that somewhat extraordinary, but yet
reasonable, zeal for the fundamentals of Christianity, which,
after all, is the Brethren’s whole mystery and peculiarity.”
“The Brethren’s Church has, at present, an illustrious nobleman
both for her Advocate and Ordinary; and most of the hard
imputations cast upon her by her antagonists are levelled
against him, and either arise from or imply a misunderstanding
of his true character. He is an _extraordinary_ person or
genius, and, as such, requires to be looked at in a particular
point of view, if one will avoid error. I will, therefore, do
nothing else but set down to that end some remarks which occur
to me, from ten or eleven years’ acquaintance with him.”
“Count Zinzendorf has in him something unlike other people. But
what is it? A very tender and deep-rooted _love to our blessed
Redeemer_, and the highest and most _honourable conceptions of
His atonement_. He willingly believes, as the New Testament
supposes, that the bitter sufferings of the Saviour are
alone able to _enervate_, as well as atone for sin; and the
contemplation and influence of His tormented person, to effect
our _sanctification_ in all its branches. And all the hearty
expressions to the honour of Jesus, that are found in ancient
Hymns, or Meditations of pious Divines, (which, because mankind
do not always keep up to the same strain of truth, are unjustly
looked upon as flights and raptures), are with him serious
principles.”
“Some have censured him for introducing, or suffering to be
introduced, some new _Phrases_, and delivering assertions which
have the look of _Paradoxes_; but these Phrases and Paradoxes,
when examined to the bottom, are orthodox; and, if not
_verbatim_ used in former ages, are, at least, parallel to the
always received theological language; and, upon some occasions,
are necessary, and happily effectual, to set people a-thinking,
and to recover in their minds the full idea belonging to many
terms and sayings over which they, by frequent repetition, have
fallen asleep, and forgot the force and import of them. In the
same view, he also likes very much to translate the Scriptures
in a free, round manner, and in modern words.”
“The same jealousy to keep the word of God from being robbed
of its energy, has led him to oppose another abuse. Many
pious people, though not sleepy and unmoved by the words they
repeat, yet amidst their best emotion, have only vague and
indeterminate ideas, nor can it be known precisely what they
mean. Now, though a dealer in mere metaphors and allegories may
be a very good soul, yet, it is not for the honour of God, that
its doctrine should rest upon such a foundation; but all its
assertions must rather be literally ascertainable realities,
in the same manner as physical ones are, upon a nearer
experience; and this is the motive of his bringing spiritual
matters to a point, under a clothing and illustration somewhat
_philosophical_, for a season, until the supposition that those
matters are only something _shadowy_, and not substance, is
exploded.”
“His original design was purely to preach and recommend his
Saviour to mankind at large, wherever he could find audience.
It was wholly accidental, and by him unsought, that he has
been entrusted with the direction of a particular Church.
However others may look upon the occurrences in the Brethren’s
congregation, _he_ is always deeply struck with _reverence_
for our Saviour’s immediate guidance of, and benediction over
the whole, which occasions his using, sometimes about things
which others may account small or common, that _magnificence_
of expression which is observable in him. The same tender
attention to his Master’s mind and order, renders him
sometimes, when he apprehends any deviation therefrom, more
_vehement_ in his manner, than is incident to those who have
not zeal enough ever to be constrained in spirit. Upon this
account, he has been thought magisterial; but very unjustly,
for, abstracting from the fervour, which, in an agony of
faithfulness, he may at such times discover, he is ready to be
informed by any one, distrustful of himself, extremely moderate
towards those against whom he may be expected to be sharp, and
not at all fond of power.
“Further, from a long experience in regard to congregations, he
sometimes delivers his opinion about the method of carrying on
the Gospel work in a very systematical manner, implying, one
might think, a great deal of _policy_; but, when his counsels
are traced to their first idea, they are always an inculcation
of one or other of the known maxims of our Saviour, with only
a more direct application to special and present cases than is
common.
“He is deeply persuaded of the blessed ends attained by
gathering some of the children of God together into such
little _congregations_ as he has the care of; but he is also
fully convinced, not only that there are many more of God’s
children remaining scattered in the several _Christian parties_
and societies; but even that the establishments, confessions,
forms of worship, etc., in those societies, have a blessed
effect for the salvation of such. For which reason, if the
hearts on all sides did but permit things to go according to
his mind, the souls who are quickened to spiritual life, even
through the necessity of the Brethren, should, notwithstanding,
remain generally in the communion and way they had been brought
up in, without the least affront or infringement offered
thereto.
“His _noble_ way of thinking, in several other particulars,
will not so much recommend him at first sight, as expose him
to censure; but noble it is, however, and will be found best
in the end. He is against using any _compulsion_ with hearts,
who ought to be led by the love of the Saviour, and by a new
nature; and is endeavouring to bring the discipline of the
congregation to such a temperature, as that it may assist a
work of grace where it is, but not mimic it where it is not. In
pursuance of which principle, he rather tolerates (with secret
grief and employing only distant hints), several unessential
faults of those about him, than correct them with detriment to
the ingenuity of spirit. These faults are charged upon him; as
for instance, a few ill-judged flights of spiritual joy and
cheerfulness, which he discerned to be such from the beginning,
but would not retrench them, because they would not subside
of themselves; and the _true_ Christian gaiety of spirit is
too valuable a jewel to hazard the breaking of it, by a rough
blow in the polishing. So far goes the generosity of his
conceptions, that he is resolved to drop the whole fabric of
the congregation, if ever the life and spirit should be found
to have left it. No wonder, then, that he insists upon adapting
the outward worship, from time to time, to the inward state of
the members; so that the Liturgy, from honesty and not from
fickleness, is capable of many _progressive gradations_, and
even of _retrogradations_, rather than fall into hypocrisy.
“In short, the person I have been speaking of is a plain man,
who proceeds straight forward; and, amidst all the richness
of his active and extensive genius, will always be serving
and inculcating one only point, namely, the _meritorious
sufferings of our Creator_,—a point by which alone Christians
are distinguished from Deists.”
How far this serves as a vindication or apology, the reader must form
his own opinion; but it exhibits the fidelity of Gambold to his German
leader, and also indicates some of the principles which Gambold himself
entertained at this period of his history.
Gambold did more than this for the censured Zinzendorf. In 1751, a five
shillings volume was published, with the title, “Maxims, Theological
Ideas, and Sentences, out of the present Ordinary of the Brethren’s
Dissertations and Discourses, from the year 1738 to 1747. Extracted by
John Gambold, M.A. 8vo.” In his Preface, Gambold writes:—
“Every one has heard, in some light or other, this _noble
person’s_ name mentioned. To judge _impartially_ of him, we are
to look back at what he has preached in a course of several
years, especially since the _discourses_, by their nature and
circumstances, were such a _free out-pouring of his heart_.”
To this there could be no objection; but it may be doubted whether
Gambold’s extracts were as _impartial_ as he wished them to be regarded.
In 1753, Gambold rendered another service to the Count, by the
publication of “The Ordinary’s Remarks upon the manner of his being
treated in Controversy. Translated from the High-Dutch, with a Preface,
by John Gambold, Minister of the Moravian Chapel in Fetter Lane.”
And shortly after this, in 1754, Gambold issued, “A Modest Plea for the
Church of the Brethren,” of which publication, Lavington, Bishop of
Exeter, wrote:—
“The whole drift of this pamphlet is to commend their sect in
_general_ terms, without answering any one _accusation_ brought
against them.”[133]
Lavington was a bitter antagonist, and what he says must be received with
caution; but still, the very title of Gambold’s production indicates that
the Brethren’s Church was hardly perfect.
More than this. In 1754, was published the largest hymn-book in the
English language: “A Collection of Hymns of the Children of God in all
Ages, from the Beginning till now. In two Parts. Designed chiefly for
the Use of the Congregations in Union with the Brethren’s Church.”
Two Volumes, pp. 380, and 390.[134] 8vo. Zinzendorf projected this;
but Gambold was his chief editor.[135] The Preface, which probably
was Gambold’s production, contains the following description of the
Brotherhood:—
“The Brethren’s grand topic, in their hymns, as every one
may see, is the Person and Propitiation of Jesus Christ.
They collect, as in the _focus_ of a burning glass, what
has descended to them from past ages, or properly from the
Bible itself, upon this head; and, that it may not be evaded
under the notion of _dicta ardentia_, they present it in a
system, and apply that system to practice. They affirm our
free acceptance with God as sinners, and through pure grace,
and yet the necessity of, and powerful assistances for, a most
real holiness of life afterwards, with such a warmth, upon
each of these subjects successively, that many a reader runs
away with the supposition of their over-doing on that side he
happened to take notice of, for want of waiting the balance.
They cherish, as an hereditary platform from their ancestors,
a very high persuasion of, and very strict rules concerning,
a New Testament Church. To mention but one peculiarity more,
they continually betray a burning propensity to the work of
propagating the Gospel of peace. If any one finds more things
uttered in this spirit, than he can make application of in his
sphere, let him remember that these are a people, very many of
whose members have such a call. Above a hundred of them have
already consumed and laid down their mortal tabernacles in
ministering the Gospel to the heathen.”
The last statement is remarkable, and greatly to the honour of the
Brethren’s Church, especially when it is remembered that only thirty
years had elapsed since the Church was founded at Herrnhuth, in Germany.
From these brief notices of his literary labours, it will be seen, that,
Gambold was a faithful, unflinching friend of the illustrious Count.
The English Moravians were passing through the terrible crisis already
mentioned in the Memoir of Ingham. They were nearly wrecked; and not
undeservedly. Ingham left them; but Gambold did his utmost to defend
them; and, as the chief English member of their community, was ordained
a “_Chor-Episcopus_,” in other words, an Assistant Bishop. The ceremony
took place at a Synod, held at Lindsey House, London, in November,
1754; and was performed by Bishops Watteville, and John and David
Nitschmann.[136]
Little more remains to be told of this sincere and devoted man. For
seventeen years, he wore the honours of his office “with humility and
diffidence.” The writer of the Memoir, prefixed to Gambold’s works,
remarks:—
“Such a Bishop would have justly been esteemed an honour to
any Church, whether ancient or modern, if disinterestedness
of spirit, humility of mind, devotion of heart, a benevolent
disposition towards all men, and a voluntary submission to the
service, not only of the Church in general, but of every member
thereof, though in the most inferior situation, be the proper
qualifications and distinguished ornaments of the Christian
Episcopacy.”
It has been already stated, that, of the thousands of sermons which
Gambold preached, during the thirty-eight years of his Christian
ministry, only two were printed. One of these was delivered, before the
University of Oxford, in 1741; the other, in Fetter Lane Chapel, London,
on a National Fast Day, in 1756.
At the latter period, the nation was in a state of great excitement and
alarm. War with France was inevitable. February 6, 1756, was observed as
a day of humiliation and prayer. Such a fast in London had not been seen
since the Restoration. Business was suspended; and churches and chapels
everywhere were crowded. Gambold’s sermon was founded upon the text,
“Tremble, thou Earth, at the presence of the Lord;” and, when published,
was entitled, “The Reasonableness and Extent of Religious Reverence.”
Though somewhat metaphysical in its style, and mode of reasoning, it
displays ability, and is worth perusing.
So far as is known, there are only two other works with the publication
of which Gambold was connected.[137] One was a beautiful and
comprehensive Catechism, of about sixty pages, 12mo, published in the
year 1765, with the title, “A Short Summary of Christian Doctrine, in
the Way of Question and Answer: The Answers being all made in the sound
and venerable Words of the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England.
To which are added, Some Extracts out of the Homilies. Collected for
the Service of a few Persons, Members of the _Established Church_; but
imagined not to be unuseful to others.” Two facts are made manifest by
this publication; namely, that, Gambold’s creed was orthodox; and that,
notwithstanding his Moravian bishopric, he had still a warm affection for
the Church of England.
The other book, referred to above, was Cranz’s History of Greenland. This
was, in the first instance, published in Germany; but the General Synod
of 1765, directed that it should be translated into English; and a great
part of the translation, and the whole of the editing was devolved upon
Gambold. The work was published, in London, in 1767, with the following
title: “The History of Greenland: containing a Description of the Country
and its Inhabitants; and particularly a Relation of the Mission carried
on, for above thirty years, by the Unitas Fratrum at New Herrnhuth and
Lichtenfels, in that Country. By David Cranz. Translated from the High
Dutch; and illustrated with Maps and other Copperplates. London, 1767.
Printed for the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel
among the Heathen.” 8vo; vol. i., pp. 405; vol. ii., pp. 497.
About eighty copies were distributed among the nobility and gentry, for
the purpose of enlightening them respecting the Moravian Mission; and the
writer of the Memoirs of James Hutton, says:—
“Although the work, in a pecuniary sense, was by no means
profitable; yet, the distribution of the copies among the
higher ranks, produced the happiest effects, by removing the
prejudice which had been excited in the public mind, through
the writings of the Bishop of Exeter, and others.”
For ten years after his episcopal ordination, Gambold resided chiefly
in London, employing himself in every branch of service for the
congregation settled there, and in regular correspondence with all his
fellow-labourers of the same communion throughout England.
In 1760, the death of Zinzendorf occurred; and four years later, a
General Synod was held at Marienborn, which Gambold attended. Besides
Himself, there were present, eleven bishops, forty-six presbyters,
deacons, and lay-elders, and thirty-seven deputies from different
congregations. It was opened, with great solemnity, on the 1st of July,
and continued its deliberations, by several adjournments, in forty-four
sessions, till the 29th of August.
Ten years had elapsed since the last General Synod; and, hence, many and
momentous were the questions that had to be considered. Their sphere of
labour had been considerably enlarged, especially in heathen countries.
There had been the long and embittered controversy in England. Some of
their Settlements had been disturbed and injured by the existing war.
Zinzendorf, their chief, had died; and the debt of the Brethren’s Church
amounted to the alarming sum of £150,000.[138] It is unnecessary to
enter into the details of this important Conference. Suffice it to say,
that, from this period, Moravianism became a purer, healthier, and more
scriptural thing than it had been before.
Gambold secured the respect and love of the Brethren composing this
General Synod; and was in a position to be of greater service to his
community than ever. His work, however, was nearly ended. After the
sessions of the Synod were concluded, he returned to London, where he
continued to reside till 1768, when he was seized with “a dropsical
asthma,” from which his sufferings were such, that his friends, who were
about him, apprehended that every day would be his last. Hoping to be
benefited by the change, he removed to his native air; and, for a time,
there were flickering hopes of amended health. Wishing to render himself
useful to the Brethren’s Church at Haverfordwest, he exerted his failing
energies to the utmost. As far as he was able, he visited the sick, and
poor, and tried to comfort them in their distresses. When he could, he
preached; his last text being “Set your affections on things above.” When
not able to preach in public, he explained the Scriptures in private, and
held fellowship with his Christian friends. His work was done; and it
only remains to see how the Oxford Methodist, and Moravian Bishop died.
In a letter dated October 11, 1770, after stating that his asthma was so
relieved that he could now lie down in bed, and obtain a little sleep, he
continued:—
“I ought to be thankful for every mitigation of pain; but
it becomes, I think, plainer than ever, that I have a real
attack of the dropsy, which whether I shall get the better of
it, or it, by and by, get the better of me, is a question. I
totter on my legs, and, though I look pretty well, yet there
are few intervals in the day wherein I have anything like
strength either of body or mind. However, I set no bounds to
my Saviour’s power, if He sees it good to continue me here
a little longer; but it is hardly to be any more expected
in my case. I really do all I can to support my impaired
constitution, and walk, most days, a little in the chapel
or burying-ground, till I am ready to drop down. All that I
can properly desire of my gracious Lord is, that, He would
be merciful to me an unworthy sinner, wash me from all my
unfaithfulness and transgressions in His blood, keep me in
communion with Himself and His people, help me to behave
rightly, at least not offensively, in my sickness, and be
perceptibly near to me in my last hour, whenever it is to be.”