Chapter L: Tyerman (9)

“I am persuaded that a Montanist, or a Novatian, who, from the
height of his purity, should look down with contempt upon poor
sinners, and exclude them from all mercy, would not be thought
such an overthrower of the Gospel, as he who should learn, from
the Author of it, to be a friend of publicans and sinners, and
to sit down upon a level with them as soon as they begin to
repent. But this is not to be wondered at. For all religious
people have such a quantity of righteousness acquired by such
painful exercise, and formed at last into current habits, which
is their wealth both for this world and the next! Now all other
schemes of religion are either so complaisant, as to tell them
they are very rich, and have enough to triumph in; or else,
only a little rough, but friendly in the main, by telling
them their riches are not yet sufficient, but by such arts of
self-denial and mental refinement, they may enlarge the stock.
But the doctrine of faith is a downright robber. It takes away
all this wealth, and only tells us it is deposited for us
with some one else, upon whose bounty we must live like mere
beggars. Indeed, they who are truly beggars, vile and filthy
sinners till very lately, may stoop to live in this dependent
condition; it suits them well enough; but those who have long
distinguished themselves from the herd of vicious wretches,
or have even gone beyond moral men,—for them to be told, that
they are either not so well, or but the same needy, impotent,
insignificant vessels of mercy with the others,—this is more
shocking to reason than transubstantiation; for reason had
rather resign its pretentions to judge what is bread or flesh,
than have this honour wrested from it, to be the architect of
virtue and righteousness.

“But whither am I running? My design was only to give you
warning, that, wherever you go, this foolishness of preaching
will alienate hearts from you, and open mouths against you.
What are you then to do, my dear friend? I will not exhort
you to courage; we need not talk of that, for nothing that
is approaching is evil. I will only mention the prejudice we
shall be under if we seem in the least to lay aside universal
charity and modesty of expression. Though we love some persons
more than we did, let us love none less; and the rather,
because we cannot say any one is bad, or destitute of divine
grace, for not thinking as we do. He only less apprehends,
less enjoys that in Christianity, which is the refuge of the
weak and miserable, and will be his when he finds himself so.
Indignation at mankind is a temper unsuitable to this cause. If
we are indeed at peace with God in Christ, let it soften our
demeanour still more, even towards gainsayers. Let them reject
us: till then, and (as far as it will be admitted,) afterwards,
let our friendship with them continue inviolate.

“Then as to expressions. What has given most offence hitherto,
is what, perhaps, may be best spared,—as some people’s
confident and hasty triumphs in the grace of God; not by
way of humble thankfulness to Him for looking upon them, or
acknowledgment of some peace and strength unknown before; but
insisting on the completeness of their justification, the
completeness of their deliverance already from all sin, and
taking to them every apostolical boast in the strongest terms.
I do not deny but power over sin, and every Gospel privilege,
are bestowed, perhaps, in as large a degree, in the beginning
of grace, as at any time afterwards; for it depends upon the
actual operation of the Spirit that moment upon the heart, not
on a mere federal or habitual union with Him; and his operation
is particularly strong at the first entrance upon a new life.
Yet, as such converts must remember, that, as this absolute
degree of innocence, excluding for the most part even the
first motions of sin, may soon depart from them, and be given
them but sometimes; though till they fall from God, they will
still be free from wilful sins; so while it continues, it is
the most slippery and dangerous thing, among all the blessings
they receive, for themselves to reflect much upon, and the most
exceptionable that they can talk of to other men. Let us speak
of everything in such a manner, as may convey glory to Christ,
without letting it glance on ourselves by the way.

“JOHN GAMBOLD.”[126]

Though exception may be taken to some of the expressions, yet the above is a most admirable letter; and shows that Gambold had embraced the same faith as Wesley,—sinners are saved solely through the merits of Christ Jesus; and on the simple exercise of faith in Him. It was not without a struggle that he was brought to this conviction. Peter Böhler said to Wesley, “My brother, my brother, that philosophy of yours must be purged away.” The same might have been said to Gambold. His learning had to give place to the simple teaching of the Word of God. He had to relinquish philosophical theories; and submit to the authoritative utterances of Christ and of His Apostles. Reason had to bend to revelation. In the case of a sincere and earnest man, like Gambold, this mental transformation was not a trifle. He himself, in a letter without date, and apparently addressed to Wesley, refers to the difficulties, and obstacles he encountered. His very learning was a hindrance in the way of his being saved; and he was reluctantly convinced, that, when “the aphorisms of learning pretend to describe and circumscribe the process of salvation, then the words of any one who has but a good heart and common sense, are generally more complete than those of a finished divine; and tally better with the unsearchable divine economy.” He continues:—

“These obstacles of nature’s education, I have often sighed
under; and, imagining I knew where the shoe pinched in your
case also, I advised the most artless, direct, and confident
laying hold of the Scripture declaration, without the ceremony
and circuitions of a man of learning, and a man of prudence,
or a man of decorum, but simply as a _plain man_, who wants
for his own soul to experience the manifestation of redeeming
grace. The words of our Saviour and His apostles, which I said
we are to take quite simply, are such as these,—‘Come unto
Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest.’ ‘Him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast
out.’ ‘He that believeth, shall not come into condemnation;
but is passed from death unto life.’ ‘If thou canst believe,
all things are possible to him that believeth.’ ‘My grace is
sufficient for thee; for My strength is made perfect in thy
weakness.’ ‘This is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came
into the world to save sinners,’ etc., etc.”

There is another letter, written by Gambold, during his transition state, which further illustrates his views and feelings at this important crisis. It was addressed “to a studious young lady,”—probably Kezziah Wesley,—and concerning it Wesley himself remarks:—“It well deserves the attention of the serious and sensible reader. Indeed, unless read with a good deal of attention, it will scarce be understood, the thoughts are so deep, and so concisely expressed.” The following are brief extracts:—

“I will no more speak against reading, since, as you say,
you ‘take pleasure in nothing else in the world.’ For, I
cannot deny, but I should be glad myself to have some object
of pleasure in the world; something, whether great or mean,
I do not care, so it be innocent, that might be a relief to
my weary mind. In the situation I am in, not yet admitted to
the glorious comforts of faith, and yet sick of the burden of
corrupt nature, it seems necessary sometimes to set aside the
dejecting prospect, by some amusement, however low. The lower
it is, the fitter for me, till faith in Christ raises me from
spiritual darkness and death. Then I would hope for such solid
consolation, as may well supersede the poor amusements and
delights of the natural man.”

“There is no such lumber in the world, as our last year’s
notions, which yet, in their day, were wonderfully fine and
delightful. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge will not keep:
it is pleasant enough when you first pluck it; but, if you
pretend to lay it up, it will rot. The man who has discovered,
as far as human thought can go, the manner how the world was
created, and how it shall be restored, the nature of the human
soul, and its state after death,—when he has done, what is
he the better? When the heat of thinking is over, will his
heart be found in any better or nobler condition, than other
men’s? Unless some bye-reasons engage him still to his old
speculations (as the respect paid him upon that account by
the world and by his juniors), will not he confess, that he
is now never the happier for them? Will not he prefer plain
common-sense before all such subtleties? Alas, alas! Under
the greatest accomplishments of the head, the heart remains
just the same as it was. This is very true, though it does not
presently appear to us. I cannot, therefore, agree to that fine
Platonical insinuation, that, ‘so much as we have of truth, so
much we have of God.’

“I heartily condole with you under the troubles of this life:
I am ready to sink under them myself. You suffered severely,
while you lived with us, from sickness and pain, bodily
hardships, etc. It grieves me to think, that ever it should
be your lot to struggle with these. Yet, while you continue
in this world, you must expect to bear your cross. Comfort
yourself under it as well as you can, by applying arguments for
patience; and if at any time you should not have strength of
mind to do this, God Himself will either support and comfort
you, or pity and accept you amidst your weakness.”

“Now, after all this long talk, the chief thing, that, by my
calling and my conscience, I ought to have spoken of, and
recommended to you, I have passed over; and that is faith in
Christ. This is the thing that I ought to speak of with zeal
and delight;—that ought to be the brightest in my imagination,
and nearest to my heart. How little do any other speculations
or reasonings conduce to this faith; and how insignificant are
they, if they do not conduce to it! I know, and actually make
the reflection upon myself, that, whatever I read, or write,
or speak, upon any other subject but this, I am a miserable
trifler. Perhaps then I do very ill, to trifle with you. It
may be, you have felt the great work of faith, cleansing you
from all sin in the blood of Christ;—that, being righteous
before God, you have peace therefrom, which passes all
understanding;—that, all things are become new with you; and
you have a new judgment and taste, as well as new satisfactions
and employments suggested to you by the Spirit of wisdom and
consolation. You seem to hint in the beginning of your letter,
that, either you are in this state, or the desire of your heart
is towards it; for you say, you now acquiesce in that, which
(by the description I could make of it), is the righteousness
of faith. If so, then you have cause to rejoice; and your joy
no man taketh from you.”

Some may think, that, in these quotations, the importance of human learning is unduly lowered; but all will admit that the learned recluse at Stanton-Harcourt, had embraced the simple method of human salvation, by a simple and sole reliance on the sacrifice and merits of Christ Jesus. This is the point which we are wishful to enforce; inasmuch as it, not only is “the truth as it is in Jesus;” but, was the origin of the great Methodist movement of the eighteenth century. Without this, England would have been without its latest religious reformation. On this ground, some other extracts from the works of Gambold, may be useful.

It is a fact, not generally noticed, that, though Gambold’s Tragedy,—the Martyrdom of Ignatius, was not published until after the authors death,[127] it was written as early as the year 1740; and, hence, may be taken as an exposition of Gambold’s views and feelings, at this early period of his life.

It certainly seems somewhat strange, that an earnest young clergyman, twenty-nine years of age, and only recently brought to the enjoyment of personal salvation, by penitent faith in Christ, should employ his time and pen upon a dramatical production; but it must be borne in mind,—(1) that, from his youth, Gambold had had a great fondness for dramatic pieces, both ancient and modern, (2) that, Gambold’s Tragedy was never intended for the stage, (3) that, its sentiments are unexceptionably pure and good; and (4) that, he was not the first who had attempted to represent the principles and practices of the Christian religion in such a form.

Gambold’s work may be a defective drama; but it is a thoughtful poem, and deserves attention. Take the following extracts, all bearing upon faith in Christ and its immediate results.

“This is the sum, my brethren! Christ is all:
If e’er we lean to other things we fall.
Spirit, and rites, and reason too, are good,
If planted and if glorying in His blood.
Faith is so simple, whence all good doth spring,
Mankind can’t think it is so great a thing;
Still o’er this pearl steps their ambitious pride,
Pursuing gladly any form beside.”

“Come hither, ye, whom from an evil world
The name of Jesus draws! You count Him sweet,
And great, and mighty, by that glimm’ring light
Your novice minds have gained. You venerate
That full acquaintance, and that vital union
Whereby the faithful know Him; and to this
You now aspire. But can you then let go
Your manly wisdom, and become as babes,
To learn new maxims and the mind of Christ?
Can you forsake your former ease and sunshine,
T’ associate with a poor afflicted people,
The scorn of all mankind? Can you the weight
Of your whole souls, with all your hopes of God,
Rest on a long-past action; and that, such
As your Lord’s mystic but opprobrious death?”

“The friends of Christ
Don’t strive with sin, but trample under foot
Its poor, exploded, antiquated strength;
They don’t rely on some benign event
From the wide wheel of things; but pierce directly
Where Jesus now admits them, and ordains
Their thrones in bliss: hence they in spirit stand
Free from all spot, amidst the train of heaven,
And see God’s face, whose full and constant smile
Doth so attend them through the wilds of life,
That natural dejection, flitting fears,
And all vicissitude, are swallowed up
In one still dawn of that eternal day.”

“Are there not here
Men who can say, in soberness and truth,
That guilt is done away, and innocence,
Fearless and free, restored within their breasts?
That vice, with dark inextricable bands,
No more detains, nor drives to acts of shame
The blushing, reasoning, reluctant mind?
That, for the passions, which by turns inspire
The worthless life of nature,—anger, sloth,
And avarice, and pride,—pure love prevails,
Kindled by heaven, nor by a bad world quenched?
That, they have inwardly exchanged their climate,
And passed from death to life; so that their heart,
Healed and exulting, from its deep recess,
Returns this answer: That the power of evil,
The sting of pain, and terrors of the grave,
Are now no more, or but at distance rage
In faithless minds; while not a dart can reach
Their citadel of peace in Jesu’s love?
That they, in short, to God’s paternal face
And firm affection can appeal and look,
Nor earthly griefs dare intercept the prospect;
But still to every want they feel as men,—
To every priestly, charitable prayer
They breathe as saints of God; His ear and power
Are nigh; till, thus, by constant use and proof
Of aid celestial, heaven is, more than earth,
Their home, the country of their heart and commerce?”

More extracts are not needed. John Gambold, the learned, moping, gloomy, philosophic Mystic, became an humble, happy, trustful believer in Christ Jesus. He shall tell his own story. Though he was introduced to Böhler in January, 1738, and became his interpreter when he preached, yet, for two years after this, his state of mind was very painful. In a letter dated April 3, 1740, he describes himself as being “mostly pensive and dejected, surrounded with solitude, sickness, and silence; not gathering strength, like the heroes, from rich circumstances, but, like vulgar minds, contracting an abjectness that blunts every finer sentiment, and damps every nobler ardour of the soul.” The day of his deliverance, however, was drawing nigh. Speaking of the Moravians, he writes:—

“I looked upon them as a happy people, and their doctrine as
fundamentally true, but could not apply the comforts thereof
to myself, being discouraged from so doing by the deep sense
I had of my own guilt and depravity, and by being defeated in
the hopes of being happy in the notions which I had formerly
imbibed. Therefore, I despaired of being in a condition better
than the generality of mankind, or different from them. But,
in December, 1740, my younger brother, having been with the
Brethren in London, came to see me. The account which he gave
of the happy course he observed amongst them, struck me with
such an agreeable surprise, that I could not but return with
him thither. My design was to see the order established, and
to feel the spirit which prevailed amongst them where several
of them dwelt together. The purpose of my visit was answered
to my great satisfaction, and I could believe, not only that
they were right both in principle and practice, but that I
might have a share of the same grace which they enjoyed. After
having been again in their company, I perceived an impulse
upon my mind to devote myself entirely to Him who died for me,
and to live wholly for Him and to His service.”

It is a curious fact, that, in the same year in which Wesley seceded from the London Moravians, Gambold became enamoured with them. Philip Henry Molther had created immense confusion and bitterness, by preaching the unscriptural doctrine, that, “to search the Scriptures, to pray, or to communicate, before we have faith, is to seek salvation by works; and such works must be laid aside before faith can be received.” Strangely enough, Gambold, and also Westley Hall (another of the Oxford Methodists), adopted this dangerous delusion. Hence the following from Wesley’s Journal:—

“1741, January 28. Our old friends, Mr. Gambold and Mr. Hall,
came to see my brother and me. The conversation turned wholly
on silent prayer, and quiet waiting for God; which, they said,
was the only possible way to attain living, saving faith.

“Sirenum voces, et Circes pocula nosti?

“Was there ever so pleasing a scheme? But where is it written?
Not in any of those books which I account the oracles of God. I
allow, if there is a better way to God than the scriptural way,
this is it. But the prejudice of education so hangs upon me,
that I cannot think there is. I must, therefore, still wait in
the Bible-way, from which this differs as light from darkness.”

The reader has here a characteristic specimen of Wesley’s refined irony, and determined adherence to the word of God. In the latter, Gambold sometimes failed. He was still a young man of only thirty; and yet not a few of the years of his past life had been worse than wasted, by his indulging in the philosophical speculations of the ancients, instead of taking the Scriptures for his guide; and now, when he had emerged from the mists of the early ages of the Christian Church, he suddenly plunged into the delusive fog of the newly-arrived Philip Henry Molther. How long he continued there we have no means of knowing; but one thing is certain, that, the above-named heresy occasioned contentions which created a partial estrangement between him and his old friend Wesley. In July, 1741, Wesley had to preach before the Oxford University, in the church of St Mary’s; and, being in doubt as to the subject of his sermon, whether it should be from the text, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” or from, “How is the faithful city become an harlot!” he went to Oxford, a month before the time of its delivery, to advise with Gambold concerning it, but met with a response far from friendly. Wesley writes:—

“He seemed to think it of no moment; ‘For,’ said he, ‘all here
are so prejudiced, that they will mind nothing you say.’”

Wesley adds:—

“I know not that. However, I am to deliver my own soul, whether
they will hear, or whether they will forbear.”

Even this was not all. Only a fortnight later, Wesley wrote:—

“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.”